Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory PalmerKD 2007v4

Reflexive Autopoietic
Systems Theory
Exploring the Meta-systems of Emergent Worlds
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D.
Apeiron Press
Orange
California
Apeiron Press
PO Box 1632
Orange, California 92856
714-633-9508
kent@palmer.name Library of Congress

palmer@exo.com Cataloging in Publication Data
palmer@think.net
palmer@dialog.net Palmer, Kent Duane
Copyright 2000 by Kent Duane Palmer Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory

[TXu884397]
Exploring the Meta-systems of Emergent
Draft #6 000219 Editorial Copy. Worlds
Draft #7 070219 Small Changes
Bibliography
Not for distribution. Includes Index
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be 1. Philosophy-- Ontology

reproduced in any form or by any means, 2. Philosophy - Worlds
electronic or mechanical, including 3. Systems Theory -- Meta Systems Theory
photocopying, recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher. I. Title
This draft book is published electronically by the

Author for review and comment by potential
readers. It may not be stored in any publicly
accessible retrieval system nor archived in any Keywords:
kind of electronic medium without permission in
writing from the Author. Permission is granted General Systems Theory, Ontology, Meta-
for temporary storage on personal computers Systems, Dissipative Structures, Autopoesis,
and the production of a single hard copy for Reflexive, Social, Worlds
personal study. Giving away or selling copies in
any form is expressly forbidden.
See newer works at http://archonic.net and http:/
The original is available on web pages /holonomic.net.
associated with the DialogNet homepage is
http://dialog.net or http://think.net
Breakup of the Monolith 281
Introduction to Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipa- The Monolith Revisited 286
tive Functor 292
Special Systems Theory: 7
On The Social Construction Of Emergent
Summary: 8 Worlds: The Foundations Of Reflexive Auto-
Introduction 9 poietic Systems Theory; Part 1: The Founda-
Systems and Meta-systems 10 tions 299
Dissipative Complexnion Special Systems 118
Autopoietic Quaternionic Systems 137 Abstract 299
Reflexive Octonionic Special Systems 144 Keywords 299
Autogenesis 177 Disciplines 299
Duality and the Kinds of Being 195 Introduction to the General Theory of Worlds
Recursive Sedenion Meta-Systems 199 300
General Meta-Systems Theory and the Theory of Overview 313
Emergent Worlds 203 Emergent Ontological Levels 401
Ultra-Efficacious Special Systems 210 Cognitive Systematization 451
Holonomics 213 Chaotic Logic 454
Special Systems Theory and Meta-Systems The- Community as a Dialectical Whole 474
ory Holonomic Duality 224 Worlding the World 479
Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Reflexive Heal- Acknowledgment 484
ing 231 Bibliography 485
Anomalous Science 238
Discovery 251 On The Social Construction Of Emergent
Acknowledgments 252 Worlds: The Foundations Of Reflexive Auto-
poietic Systems Theory Part 2: Reflexive Au-
THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF topoietic Systems Theory 487
AUTOPOIETIC THEORY: 256
Abstract 487
Introduction 256 Keywords 487
Caveat 257 Disciplines 487
History 258 INTRODUCTION 488
First Approximation 260 ARCHITECTONIC 491
Sophistication 264 A POINT OF DEPARTURE 497
Ontological Difference 265 Worldmaking 512
Pure Presence 266 STAGE ONE 528
A new kind of Being arises 266 Stage Two 548
Biology and Physics in a new world. 268 Stage Three 554
Dynamism 270 Stage Four 557
Next Step Up -- Segmentation 271 The Bifurcations of the Matrix. 560
Back to Biology 275 General Systems Theory 564
The final step 276 Stage Five 580
Stage Six 582 Presence 735
Stage Seven 583 Realization 746
Back to the Void 584 Processes Arising 748
Matrix Logic 584 Conclusion 753
Social Machines and Computational Sociology
587 Steps to the Threshold of the Social Part 1:
Artificial Intersubjective Simulation 592 The Mathematical Analogies to Dissipative,
Fifth and Sixth Dimensional Rings 594 Autopoietic, and Reflexive Systems. 760
Worlds within worlds 596
Reprise: Moving Through the Stages Yet Again Abstract 760
599 Keywords 761
Appendix: Software Design Methods, Computability, and
r embodiment 637 General Systems Theory 761
s embodiment 638 Disjunctions between Continuities 764
t embodiment 639 Dissipative Systems 768
u embodiment 640 Autopoietic Systems 777
s-t combination = state machine 643 Reflexive/Social Systems 792
r-u combination = petrinet 643 Out of Control 814
s-u combination = dataflow 645 Kinds of Being 817
r-t combination = darts 646 Artificiality 828
s-r combination = worldlines and scenari- Conclusion 832
os 647 Acknowledgments 833
t-u combination = Virtual Layered Ma-
chine and mapping 648 Steps to the Threshold of the Social Part 2:
General and Special Systems Theories: Form,
On The Social Construction Of Emergent Pattern, Traces and Magician Systems. 837
Worlds: The Foundations Of Reflexive Auto-
poietic Systems Theory Part 3: Chaotic Social Abstract 837
Process Architecture 660 Keywords 837
Acknowledgments 837
Abstract 660 Stages of the Unfolding of General Systems The-
Keywords 660 ory and Beyond 838
Disciplines 660 Pattern and Form 842
Autopoietic Sociology and Sociology of Gnosis Magicians and Special Systems Theory 848
661 Laws of Form and Pattern 854
Chaotic Process Modeling 674 Meta-levels of difference 863
A Minimal Social Process Model 683 Ordering of Patterns 867
Actors and Groups 687 Recursiveness within the Laws of Form and Pat-
A Theory of Work as Social Action 692 tern 871
Macro Quantum Mechanics 700 Kinds of Truth 880
Quality and Quantity 712 Building Minimal Social Machines 884
The Dynamic of Consciousness 732 Laws of Pattern 893
General Magicians Theory 895 Epilogue 1126
Conclusion 901 Acknowledgments: 1129
Steps to the Threshold of the Social 908 Steps To The Threshold Of The Social PART
Abstract Part 3: Anti-Category theory, Anni- 5: Laws of Form and Pattern, Magician Meta-
hilation Mosaics, Magician Constellations, Systems, Matrix Logic, Special Systems Theo-
and Mythic Foundations. 908 ry and Artificial Sociality 1133
Keywords 908 The Problematic 1133

A Search for a Theory of Annihilation 908 Truth values 1135
Anti-Category Theory 913 An Implementation 1143
Annihilation Mosaics 918 Information Embeddings and the Laws of Form
Magician Constellations 934 1149
The Minimal Structure of Magician Constella- Laws of Form and Pattern and the Ontological
tions 937 Fourfold 1155
The Computational Basis of Magician Constella- Magician Operators and the four aspects of Laws
tions 946 of Form/Pattern 1162
Sociality of Magician Constellations 952 Magical Operators 1168
The Orthogonality of Magician Constellations Connections to Traditional Chinese Sciences
from GST 955 1170
Norns and the Primal Scene 959 The Logico-mathematical Structure of Interpene-
Fourfolds Embracing 963 trating Eventities 1171
An unlikely dialogue between Milrepa and Par- Non-dual and Dual Fourfolds 1175
menides. 973 Phenomenology of emptiness 1178
Cognition 1182
Steps To The Threshold Of The Social Part 4: Social Nature of Space and Time 1189
Conjunction and Contradiction 989 The Sedenion (Sedecimnion) 1199
Sameness/Difference and Static/Dynamic Cou-
Introduction to the problem of conjunction and ples 1209
contradiction 989 Kinds of Being in relation to the Noumena. 1212
Deriving the Greimas square from logic. 999 Return to the Quantum Model of Consciousness
Unfolding the Greimas square to find the special 1217
systems. 1004 Emergent Systems 1221
Aufhebung 1018 The minimal system in consciousness 1224
Where does synthesis come from? 1026 Matrix Logic and the Social 1226
In the Magical Mirrorhouse 1041 Magician Construction 1227
Timestreams 1054 Artificial Intersubjective Simulation 1231
Information Mechanics 1076 The best of all possible worlds. 1231
Non-duality in Learning Organizations and the The articulation of ultra-efficient consciousness.
Stairs to Nowhere 1083 1233
The Logical Nature of the Social 1118
Our Finitude 1122
Steps To The Threshold Of The Social PART
6: Emergent Meta-Systems 1238 Note:
Preliminary Sketch 1238 These papers preserve the history of the dis-
Non-Duality 1275 covery of Special Systems and Emergent Sys-
Ontological Prerequisites 1302 tems Theory. The first chapter was written
Complementarities and the Polarity of the Nou- last as a summary. The subsequent papers
mena and the Autopoietic Special System 1314 were an intellectual journey by the author in
Complementarities and Emergent Meta-systems. trying to understand Special Systems Theory
1323 which was first uncovered in the prior book by
Emergent Meta-Systems and Systems and Soft- the author called The Fragmentation of Being
ware Methodologies 1334 and the Path Beyond the Void. Prior to that
A definition of EMS components in Swarms. the author wrote Wild Software Meta-systems
1342 which is a book on the philosophy of Software
Mirroring of the Emergent Meta-System 1348 Design Methods. This accounts for the empha-
sis on software throughout these working pa-
Thinking The Unthinkable: Prelude to an Em- pers. After the author finished these papers he
pirical Ontology1357 went on to produce many other different pa-
pers and presentations about Special Systems
Synoptic View of the Fourfold of Being 1357 Theory which are available at http://archon-
Hierarchies 1391 ic.net and http://think.net. But this was fol-
Kierkegaard 1413 lowed by an attempt to do a second Ph.D in
Layered Agents 1424 Systems Engineering in which many of these
Singlarities in the Fourfold 1424 same subjects were revisited again. See http://
Meta-complementarity and multi-complementar- holonomic.net. Many of these papers are
ity. 1424 available on the Arrow Repository at the Uni-
Coda: Important retraction at end of this essay. versity of South Australia. The first disserta-
tion of the author was done at London School
of Economics, University of London under the
title The Structure of Theoretical Systems in
relation to Emergence (1982). The reader
might want to have a look at these prior and
subsequent works to get an idea of the trajec-
tory of the thought of which these papers are
just a small, and in the light of subsequent re-
search, perhaps flawed, part. This has been a
wonderful intellectual journey. I hope you en-
joy this part of it. But we should not forget the
other parts that perhaps tell the same story in
simpler terms or from a different perspective.
Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Theory
Introduction to
Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative
Special Systems Theory:
An Approach to Emergent Meta-systems

through Holonomics

P.O. Box 1632
Orange CA 92856 USA
714-633-9508
palmer@exo.com
Copyright 2000 K. Palmer. [TXu884397]

All Rights Reserved. Not for distribution.
Review Copy Only. Unfinished Draft.
Version 0.49; 01/19/2000 rastnewY.fm
First submitted to IJGS 11/01/95
Latest version at URL

http://dialog.net:85/homepage/autopoiesis.html
http://archonic.net
http://think.net
7
0. Summary:
A newly discovered approach to extending General Systems Theory as
defined by George Klir through a set of Special Systems is described. General
Systems Theory is distinguished from the theory of Meta-systems. Then, a hinge of
three special systems is identified between systems and meta-systems. These special
systems are defined by algebraic analogies. Anomalous physical phenomena are
specified that exemplify the structures defined by the algebraic analogies. The
extraordinary efficacious properties of these special systems are explained. These
include ultra-efficiency and ultra-effectiveness. These three special systems are
called dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive. They are anomalous within general
systems theory and provide a bridge between the theory of systems and the theory of
recursive meta-systems. This extension of Systems Theory allows us to move step
by step through a series of emergent levels up to a comprehensive Meta-systems
Theory. In that theory the different special systems fit together to produce the inverse
of General Systems Theory which is called Emergent Meta-systems Theory.
Emergent Meta-systems are composed of the meta-operations which appear at each
level of algebraic emergence from the system through the three levels of special
systems. Each level can be seen as a meta-operator within the overall structure of the
Emergent Meta-system. Together these operations produce a theoretical model of
the meta-system. Historical examples of artifacts with the structure of the Emergent
Meta-system are pointed out. Four different series of anomalous physical, logical
and mathematical structures are related which give different views of the special
systems. Besides the series of solitons and the various other physical phenomena that
exemplify ultra-efficiency we also look at the series of topological structures of
which the mobius strip and kleinian bottles are the best known examples. These other
mathematical and physical phenomena which indicate the nature of the special
systems elaborate on the structures established through the algebraic analogies. In
general we are indicating a new set of anomalous systems that may be used to extend
and enrich general systems theory and build a bridge to a complete meta-systems
theory. The special systems form the underlying basis of Meta-systems theory
because it is through their interaction that they form the Emergent Meta-system. By
recognizing this peculiar state of affairs we both found the General Meta-systems
Theory and a Holonomics that deals with the Special Systems Theory at the same
time.
Keywords: Systems Theory, Dissipative Systems, Autopoietic Systems, Reflexive Systems, Recursive
Systems, Meta-Systems, Meta-systems Theory, Ontology, Existence, Emergence, Social Phenomenology, Social
Theory, Ultra-efficacity, Ultra-effectiveness, Ultra-efficiency, Holonomics, Complexnion, Quaternion, Octonion,
Sedenion, Algebra, Hyper-complex Algebras, Soliton, Soliton Breather, Instanaton, Soliton Super-Breather, Super-
Conductivity, Bose-Einstein Condensate, Super-Fluidity, Mobius Strip, Kleinian Bottle, Hyper-Kleinian Bottle,
Lemniscate, Autogenesis, Computational Sociology, Autopoietic Sociology, Social Construction, Reflexive
Sociology, Sociological Theory, Autogenesis, Gaia, Supra-rationality, Paradoxicality, Nihilism, Non-nihilisitic
Distinction, Gestalt, Flow, Proto-Gestalt, Proto-Flow, Environment, Context, Situation, Milieu, Propensity,
Disposition, Tendency, Field.
8
1. Introduction
This paper will strike many as strange and peculiar because it goes against
many of the fundamental presuppositions of the Western scientific approach to
phenomena. In fact, it produces a bridge for understanding alternative scientific
traditions such as those found in China and Islam and traditional sciences that are
considered non-scientific from the narrow perspective of Western philosophy of
science like Acupuncture and Homeopathy. In effect a more sophisticated and
elegant form of science, that can be seen as an extension of normal Western science,
is developed based on the understanding of meta-systems and some very special
anomalous systems. The understanding of this extension is timely because it is
precisely the misunderstanding of the environment which has led to the global
destruction of our planetary environment. It is posited that these alternative scientific
traditions and their traditional sciences have a much greater sensitivity to
environmental concerns. This extension shows how we can both incorporate those
concerns ourselves and extend our Western science to support that understanding
and so benefit from the wisdom of traditional sciences developed within other
worldviews down through history.
Ostensibly this paper is an introduction to the theory of Special Anomalous

Systems that are seen to exist when we extend Formal Structural Systems Theory,
such as that produced by George Klir, toward the realm of Meta-systems. Thus, it
can be seen as developing a theory within the domain of General Systems Theory
broadly conceived. However, since Systems Theory touches every discipline that
attempts to isolate and describe systems, the presented here theory has very wide and
deep implications for most scientific disciplines. Of special interest is the
implications for Sociology because the theory is based on a philosophical Social
Phenomenology and attempts to extend the biological concept of the autopoietic
special system into the social realm. It aims at defining rigorously the social in terms
of reflexivity in the tradition of philosophically oriented sociologists such as John
O’Malley and Barry Sandywell. However, this extension is based on a previous
extension from the physical dissipative special systems developed by Prigogine to
the picture of living biological autopoietic special systems developed by Maturana
and Varela. The paper proposes a new special systems and meta-systems theoretic
basis for understanding and grounding our approach to social phenomena as
reflexive1. However, because it ultimately finds that Special Systems Theory
describes precisely the Meta-systems, this paper also has much to say about the
foundations of ecology and environmentalism and specifically gives us an
interesting and new concept of Gaia, the living and cognitive meta-environment.
1. A precursor to this work is that of Arthur M. Young [1976 ]Reflexive Universe. Delacorte Press / Seymour Lawrence. This be-
comes evident if one reads Appendix II of that book on why the number seven is used as a basis of his category schemes.
However we offer a very different categorical interpretation of the underlying mathematical basis which he appears to
have appreciated before our work..
9
There are four basic disciplines related to Systems Theory of which three are
defined for the first time in this paper. The first discipline is General Systems Theory
which we take George Klir’s Architecture of Systems Problem Solving to be the best
representative. It is a good generalization of a Formal Structural Systems Theory.
From this basis we project General Meta-systems Theory being concerned with
systems of systems and we interpret these are environments of systems. Then
between these two extremes we posit two other disciplines called Special Systems
Theory and Emergent Meta-Systems Theory. Special Systems Theory amounts to
the Holonomics as it concerns structures that are both whole and part yet neither
precisely whole or part. Emergent Meta-Systems Theory concerns the meta-
structures that occur when you combine normal emergent systems with the special
systems to produce a dynamic cycling structure called an Emergent Meta-system.
The Emergent Meta-system is posited to be the underlying dynamic of Existence
beyond Being. Special Systems are posited to be an indication of the infra-structure
of the Void. The Meta-Systems Theory includes both of these in an over arching
theory of interpenetration of all things which are considered empty existences. This
paper projects Meta-Systems as a means of situating Special Systems and then
describes Emergent Meta-systems. It then shows how these two intermediate
representations allow us to re-comprehend Meta-systems by the use of the new
conceptual tools that have been developed.
2. Systems and Meta-systems

Instead of looking at systems as objects2 we maintain that they are social
gestalts3 and we do not divide them into sub-systems and sub-sub-systems, but
instead contrast the systems view that sees the super-system as a social gestalt with
a different way of looking at systems called the meta-system approach4. The view of
the nested complex super-system is the opposite of the denested and desconstructed
Meta-systems view. The Meta-system is the view of a system that occurs when one
takes it apart and forms a field of disassembled mutually implicative parts. This view
might also be called the proto-gestalt which underlies the pattern of gestalts seen
from various viewpoints on the system. These various views and their gestalts have
an inner relation that David Bohm5 called an “implicate order” that unfolds as we
move from viewpoint to viewpoint and see a series of gestalts. The implicate order
is the relation between the external coherence of a phenomenon which Husserl called
the noematic nucleus and the internal coherence of the phenomenon which he called
2. As does George Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. op cit.

3. Köhler, W. [1929] Gestalt psychology. H. Liveright, New York. See also, Koffka, K [1935] Principles of Gestalt Psychology.
New York.
4. Gigch, John P. [1991] System Design Modeling and Meta-modeling. Plenum Press, New York. See also Wilden, A. [1987] The
Rules are No Game. London, Routlege Kegan Paul.
5. Bohm, D. [1980] Wholeness and the Implicate Order London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
10
the essence6. Or we might say that the Meta-system corresponds to the design
landscape out of which the system as a whole arises7. Meta-systems have two
properties as the background out of which systems arise: They are the origins of
systems and they are the arena within which systems communicate and cooperate or
engage in conflict. Many different possible systems might arise from the same design
landscape. When certain specific ones are embodied then suddenly the design
landscape becomes the arena within which the embodied systems cooperate or
conflict and co-evolve. Within this arena systems prove their fitness and those best
adapted to the meta-system ecological environment persist longest or at least until
there is a catastrophic change in the meta-systemic milieu. These two aspects of the
meta-system provide a general structure in which evolutionary adaptation of
complex systems may take place. When the meta-system plays these roles it is
switching back and forth between its complementary aspects of origin or arena.
Meta-systems are best modeled with systems-dynamics type models except in the
meta-system positive feedback in each direction can go out of balance and destroy
the dynamic balance of negative feedback. When positive feedback goes out of
balance it can spiral off in either a positive or negative direction producing either a
black hole (catastrophe) or miracle (windfall) in the meta-systemic landscape. Also
that landscape can be inhabited by singularities which are utterly unexpected
anomalies. If systems-dynamics8 models are allowed to go ‘out of control’ then they
model the meta-systemic environment very well.
We tend to mix up systems and meta-system views of phenomena because we

do not have a good word for a meta-system that abstracts its essential characteristics,
instead we are left with a hodgepodge of words like ecosystem, environment,
situation, context or milieu9. However, systems and meta-systems are very different
views that can be applied to the same phenomena. Yet, in most disciplines the
systematic view predominates and genuinely meta-systemic approaches are
exceedingly rare. One notable exception is the discipline of ecology. Taking the
meta-system view one sees the phenomena as a field of parts that are implicitly
related to each other, but disassembled, while the other view sees those parts as
assembled into a working system. For instance, in Software Engineering the program
design is meta-systemic while the executing program may be seen as a system. These
two views of phenomena and the ability to switch back and forth between them allow
us to see things as what Arthur Koestler10 called “holons.” That is to say, as kinds of
6. Husserl, E. [1958] Ideas; general introduction to pure phenomenology. Volume 1; London, Allen & Unwin; New York, Mac-
millan.
7. A model of such a design landscape could be the NK permutational fitness surfaces presented by Stuart Kauffman in The Origins
of Order [1993] Oxford U.P. and At Home In The Universe [1995] Oxford U.P.
8. George P. Richardson [1991] Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
Press.
9. All these terms are imprecise.
11
entities that have one face facing down within the hierarchy of subsystems and while
having the other face facing upward in that same hierarchy. Holons are two faced like
the god Janus always presenting a different face to the whole of which it is a part
from the face it presents to the parts for which it is a whole. A holon11 is defined here
by means of our ability to switch back and forth between the system and meta-
systemic views of things. The holon is the rare point at which the meta-systemic and
systemic views overlap and coincide. In order to have a sustained holonomic picture
of things that are nested within super-systems, but also contain nested sub-systems,
it is necessary to find a pivot that allows the observer to continuously change views
from macro to micro within the layered super-system. The holon is what lies between
the micro and macro viewpoints that cannot wholly be seen from either. The
reversibility between part-whole and whole-part indicates the nondual chiasmus
between the two viewpoints which can only partially be seen from either. The study
of the special systems elucidates that pivot that exists as a hinge between the system
and meta-systemic views of things. This study of the meso-level between macro and
micro will be called Holonomics12. Holonomics is the study of the nomos of the
holons. Nomos is the intrinsic ordering that exists beyond the dualism of Logos and
Physus. Both holons and nomi are meant to be understood as nondualistic concepts
in contrast to the dualistic concepts we normally use to attempt to dissect systems in
our theorizing.
As has been mentioned there is no good word for meta-system in our normal
vocabulary. If I were to suggest a name it would be Archon. The archons were the
leaders of the city in Ancient Athens who held power beyond the power of the King.
If we consider the King and his domination to be Barbaric Domination of the Subject
and thus a restricted economy, the Archons represented the general economy of the
city. Archons are the origin for the word Archetype which is derived from the use of
the word Archon by the Gnostics. We repudiate the Gnostic connection, but think
that the association with what Jung called the Archetype is appropriate. Archons
mean the essential characteristics shared by non-things like the field, ecosystem,
environment, situation, context, milieu, etc. within which the system has its origin
and which provides the arena within which systems exist and cooperate. The perfect
analogy is that of the application program within the "operating system." Another
good example is the relation of the Turing machine to the universal Turing machine.
The best developed discipline in the Academy in terms of thinking about meta-
systemic archons is Ecology. But also the field theories in physics are very good
examples of highly developed meta-systemic models.
Now what we should consider is the relation of the system to the meta-system.
10. Koestler, A. [1978] Janus, A summing up. London: Hutchinson.

11. Bahm, A.J. [1984] “Holons: Three concepts” in Systems Research Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 145-150, Pergamon Press.
12. Jeffrey S. Stamps [1980] Holonomy: A Human Systems Theory. Intersystems Publications, Seaside, CA.
12
Because all of the other levels of the ontological hierarchies are merely images at
different levels of Being of this primary relation. Illusion itself is the fusion or
integration of all the kinds of Being. We get the best picture of the system-archon
relation when we consider this ideal type. A system is a social gestalt and an archon
is a social proto-gestalt. A proto-gestalt has implicate order while a gestalt has
explicit order. The dual of a gestalt is a flow and the dual of the proto-gestalt is the
proto-flow. Gestalts and flows may either be synchronic or diachronic. A synchronic
gestalt is perceptual, or even conceptual. A diachronic gestalt is also called a
temporal gestalt13, it is a gestalt that persists through time and only becomes whole
across a span of time. William James called this aspect of time the specious
present14. G.H. Mead says it was the time something needed to be itself. A
synchronic flow is a timelapse snapshot of a flow. A diachronic flow is what we
normally think of as a flow like a river. This is a precessing flow, in the sense that
change is changing so that a differential between changes is created. Proto-gestalts
and proto-flows are also synchronic and diachronic. The synchronic proto-gestalt is
hidden ordering behind the succession of gestalts. A diachronic proto-gestalt is made
explicit by the rendering of the multiple gestalts explicitly that it entails. A
synchronic proto-flow is hidden changes not yet appearing overtly. Diachronic
Proto-Flow makes changes explicit.
•Synchronic Gestalt (perceptual or conceptual gestalt) Figure on Ground.

•Diachronic Gestalt (temporal gestalt) Event on Context.
•Synchronic Flow (timelapse flow, like timelapse photograph of a waterfall that captures the
general activity in a blur) Foreground stream moving past background reference point.
•Diachronic Flow (precessing flow, like river where differential changes are taking place
simultaneously which we apprehend all together as a general impression.) Background
changing in relation to itself producing its own context against a timing event.
•Synchronic Proto-Gestalt (implicate ordering) Origin. Various inks of different colors are in
solution and are invisible. At the origin what might unfold and how it might unfold is
invisible.
•Diachronic Proto-Gestalt (explicitly ordering) Arena. Various inks are rotated out of solution
one at a time and are thus made visible in a sequence. Each rotation of an inkblot out of
the solution is a repatterning of the arena within which systems interact.
•Synchronic Proto-Flow (implicate changing) Source. Solution changes with respect to a
particular kind of Ink. The solution is the meta-environment for the inkblots held in
suspension and mixed into the solution. The source is when the meta-environment
changes and thus gives us a new and different proto-gestalt. Consequently the source is
deeper than the origin. The source is the inner differentiation of possible origins.
13. This same idea has been discovered independently by Patrick McKee and Carol Quinn of Colorado State, Fort Collins, as seen
in their article “Temporal Gestalt: A Concept for Quantum Theory” in Methodology and Science. Esser Scientific Press
Netherlands. (date and volume unknown)
14. Stroud, J.M. “The Fine Structure of Psychological Time” in Annals of the N.Y Academy of Science 138 (2) 623-631
13
•Diachronic Proto-Flow (explicit changing) Oceanus or Encompassing Stream. Solution changes

in respect to itself producing its own context against an Inking event. The solution as
meta-environment encompasses the environment with its implicate order. When the
solution which is like an ether changes in relation to itself then we have an
encompassing change that effects everything within the meta-environment or domain.
If you have looked at David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order15
then the reference to ink will be clear. He uses ink mixed into solutions which can be
unmixed and brought back out of the solution by reversing the stirring process
precisely as the prime example of the possibility of implicate order. We assume that
there are actually multiple inks in the solution and that each can be separately
unfurled to make them visible if necessary. Any particular gestalt we look at is an
example of an ink-splotch within the solution which was rotated out. The splotch is
like a Rorschach test and contains both figure and ground. The figure is a form and
the ground is a meta-systemic archon field. The proto-gestalt is an ordering of the
gestalts implicit in the field and thus it is related to Polyani's concept of Tacit
Knowledge. Our tacit knowledge of our environment has to do with the
understanding of the underlying social-proto-gestalt. But just as gestalts are not just
perceptual, but also temporal and have their duals in timelapse and precessing flows,
so too the proto-gestalt is not just this implicate patterning. It is also the unfolded
proto-gestalt which is a temporal unfolding of each gestalt blob in a particular order.
It is also the synchronic proto-flow in which the solution within which the social
gestalt is suspended changes with respect to the blob, this is kind of like the idea of
ether moving in the physics of yesteryear. The diachronic proto-flow is where the
ether changes in relation to itself in relation to a timing event. Thus, we can see
differential changes in the ether like the differential changes in the flows that go
through the ether. Here the ether means the meta2-system16, that is the context of the
situation or domain.
15. op.cit.
16. While the Meta-system is composed of Source (sink) / Stream (cause) :: Origin (destination) / Arena (boundary) in the Meta2-
system these are accompanied by their duals Generator (destructor) / Encompassing Regress :: Singularity (anomaly) /
Subspace Regress. The sink is the outflow opposite the source of inflow from nowhere by which the system enters the
meta-system. The encompassing regress is the infinite extent of the n-dimensional encompassing domains which can be
seen in the simplest regular polytope in each n-dimensional space which follows the Pascal Triangle up toward infinity.
The singularity is the point of catastrophe such as that described by Rene Thom which describes where the order from
nowhere enters the environment. The subspace regress is the negative dimensionality where the infinite regress of hyper-
complex algebras and non-division algebras exist which follow the Pascal Triangle up toward infinity. The generator (de-
structor) is the algorithm or production mechanism by which that which flows from a source is produced. Concerning
Catastrophe Theory see Saunders, P. T. [1980] An introduction to catastrophe theory. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press. See also Thom, René, [1975] Structural stability and morphogenesis; an outline of a general theory of
models., Translated from the French ed., as updated by the author, by D. H. Fowler. With a foreword by C. H. Wadding-
ton. Reading, Mass., W. A. Benjamin, 1975.
14
When we hear about Holonomic Nonduality and its relation to processes of

life and consciousness we have no technical vocabulary to talk about how these
processes actually work17. The concept of the differentiation of the social gestalt in
relation to the social proto-gestalt gives us that vocabulary. We do not experience
pure flux. If we did there would be no possibility of discrimination. Pure Flux is
nihilistic. We need to understand the basis of discrimination before we can give it up.
Discrimination occurs naturally when we see a gestalt in our perception. But in order
for that discrimination of the gestalt to produce an image of a 'system' we need all
these aspects. A system is a series of gestalts as we look at its various aspects. The
system is also in time a set of events placed against the background of relevant
happenings. Thus we think of temporal gestalt and perceptual gestalt as inter-
twining. We can think of each thing in the system as an eventity, that is an event and
entity simultaneously. We see the event as part of a temporal gestalt and we see the
entity as a figure in a perceptual gestalt. We see the entities as either with fixed
essence or with unfolding essences. Unfolding essences have their constraints for
transformation fixed at the level of traces. But we actually go beyond this view to
look at the flows themselves within the system. When we do that we invert the gestalt
and look at the movement of the foreground against a fixed object reference point. If
we took a time-lapse picture of this it would be a blur of action suggesting the general
movement within the system, as when we take a picture of a highway or traffic on
streets at night with time-lapse photography. On the other hand we can do the same
thing with the events. We can watch the general flow through time in relation to some
timing event. General flow through time is experienced as precessing, i.e. changes
changing in relation to each other. Precessing produces a change in timing which is
then ranged against some trusted clock event. By looking at the diachronic flows we
can get some idea of how the system is trending in its changes over time. All four of
these views relate to our capture of the system as a social gestalt. Social gestalt means
multiple simultaneous culturally related observers who share a world. Similarly we
can see the same thing with relation to the meta-systemic archon. The archon is
captured by David Bohm's idea of implicate order. Implicate order is like the mixture
of ink blotches into solutions. The inkblot is like the Rorschach in that they contain
multiple gestalts together in a configuration. We can assume that the universal ether,
i.e. suchness, can contain multiple colored ink blotches, i.e. shadows and reflections,
mixed into it in various ways and that any of them can be reversed out and made
visible. Any particular gestalt we are looking at is merely one selection from a
particular Rorschach. The Rorschach will have multiple simultaneous gestalts
which our eyes pick from as we look around. But when the Rorschach changes then
a new patterning is revealed by rotating in one inkblot into the solution and another
out of the solution. The implicate order is a way to explain the patterning of the series
of gestalts we are presented with. In effect we have some freedom to select one out
17. Jahn, R.G. and Dunne, B.J. [1987] Margins of Reality: the role of consciousness in the physical world. Harcourt Brace Jav-
anovich Pub.
15
of an array of presented possible gestalts. But that array of presented possible gestalts
can change radically when a new inkblot is rotated out of the solution. Implicate
order explains freedom and constraint simultaneously. We are constrained by the
inkblot that has been rotated out of the solution, but we are free to explore whatever
inkblot is now visible. When we think about this we see that this corresponds at the
next higher level to the dichotomy between synchronic/diachronic and gestalt/flow.
The synchronic proto-gestalt is the hidden implicate order that David Bohm talks
about. A diachronic proto-gestalt is when we go through the process of rotating all
the inkblots out in some order. Of course multiple orders of manifestation are
possible but we can only actualize one of the orders at a time. This process makes
the implicit explicit but also takes time and further binds manifestation to a particular
order. Now if we are to think of the dual of this procedure in terms of flows then we
see that the synchronic proto-flow is when the solution, or the ether of the archon
changes in relation to a particular ink. This means that there is a change internal to
the relation of the proto-gestalt to its context. This brings an awareness of the meta-
meta-system. Each higher level meta-system acts as ether to the lower level meta-
system. We call the meta-meta-system a domain. When the domain changes in
respect to the network of inkblots mixed into the solution then there is a fundamental
reordering of the proto-gestalt by the proto2-level of gestalt. Similarly it could be that
the reference is in time not in space, so that there is a differential changing factor in
the proto-flows that are seen against a temporal reference instead of an object
reference. All this makes the proto-gestalt/flow more visible to us than it would be
otherwise and allows us to get a picture of the meta-system and its relation to its
container meta-system. Inkblots on Solution is the equivalent of Figures on Ground
in the Meta-system. Solutions are the Domain and the Inkblots are the gestalts. So
our principle that each level is generated out of the conjunction of the adjacent levels
is adhered to very strictly.
The philosophical approach to systems theory advocated in this essay is

fundamentally different from other approaches in the literature. This philosophical
approach goes against the grain of the predominately dualistic propensity of the
Western philosophical tradition that articulates the basic assumptions of the Indo-
European worldview. Upon entering the metaphysical era within the Western branch
of the Indo-European worldview inaugurated by Thales and Anaximander, a split
occurred between the metaphysical principle as a transcendental and the immanent
manifestations. Thales suggested that the metaphysical principle was the water of
life, i.e. vital energy or what the Chinese18 called “Chi.” Anaxamander instead
suggested as a principle the Unlimited (Apeiron19) as contrasted to the Limited.
Throughout the development of the Western philosophical tradition many different
18. Zhang, Dai Nian [1987] “On Heaven, Dao, Qi, Li, and Ze” in Chinese Studies in Philosophy. Fall, 1987, Volume XIX, Number
1, pp 3-45.
19. Seligman, P. [1962] The Apeiron of Anaxamander. London, Athlone Press.
16
metaphysical principles have been proposed by different philosophers. Parmenides

suggested that the basic metaphysical principle should be linguistic, and suggested
that the most general concept within the Indo-european languages, which is Being,
should be used as the reference point. This suggestion that Being is the ultimate
metaphysical principle has become the predominate viewpoint within our tradition
and has driven its development. But regardless of what transcendental metaphysical
principle we select as ultimate, the important matter is the existence of the split
between the Apeiron (transcendental) and the Peiron (immanent). Almost
immediately after this bifurcation that inaugurated the metaphysical era as an
emergent event that transformed our tradition out of the mythopoetic era20, there was
a second bifurcation of the Peiron (limited) that occurred separating physus from
logos. This second bifurcation is between the unfolding of language and the
unfolding of physical organisms. This bifurcation is the basis of most dualisms that
propagate within our tradition such as mind/body, consciousness/brain, matter/spirit,
male/female, etc. These dualisms are assumed by almost every discipline to be part
of the foundations upon which science is built. We do not assume the validity of
these deep and fundamental dichotomies. Instead, we seek a non-dual basis within
these very same foundations, by first accepting the groundlessness philosophy
discovers at the basis of the sciences, and then second searching beyond the dualisms
that constantly shift with the groundlessness for the non-dual aspects of existence
that are hidden by the projection of dualism by science. The recognition of the
existence of holons such as those associated with the special systems that are the
focus of this study is a case in point. Beyond the continually shifting distinction
between logos and physus exists a nomos, or subtle order, that makes it possible for
our mathematical representations to be used as a tool21 to understand physical
phenomena. In this essay we point out a holonomic aspect of the nomos which has
not previously been noticed due to the obscuration of the non-dual nomos by the
continual projection of dualisms, like that between logos and physus, onto existence.
The non-dual approach is alien to this worldview, but has been pursued by other
worldviews, such as the Chinese22 and Islamic worldviews. However, there is a non-
dual stream running through the Western worldview as well, which can be seen in
the works of Plato, and which appears in Autopoietic Theory as enunciated by
Maturana and Varela. They discover autopoietic systems to be chiasmically living23
and cognitive. We can see Charles Peirce as the precursor to autopoietic theory when
he outlines the possibility of such a theory in his discussion of “protoplasm” in his
essay “Man’s Glassy Essence,”24 which he also attempts to define in such a way as
to remain non-dual, bridging the gap between dualisms. We find the same kind of
20. Hatab, L.J. [1990] Myth and Philosophy. Lasalle IL, Open Court.
21. Rucker, R. [987] Mind Tools. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.
22. Henderson, J.B. [1984] The Development and Decline of Chinese Cosmology. N.Y. Columbia University Press.
23. Capra, F. [1996] The Web of Life. N.Y., Anchor Books, Doubleday.
24. Peirce, C. [1892] Monist 3 Oct 1-22
17
formulation embedded in Plato’s description of the autopoietic “second best” city in

the Laws. That which is simultaneously living and cognitive has a special non-dual
nomos beyond the dualism we normally project on living things. This theoretical
formulation appears paradoxical from the normal dualistic viewpoint of science.
This is why autopoietic theory remains marginal to standard scientific discourse. In
this paper we extend this non-dual mode of thinking and practice to emergent levels
above and below the autopoietic, namely to the dissipative level of form/pattern
below and to the reflexive level of social/psychological above. Each of these levels
are emergent25 with respect to each other so that each have their own characteristics
even though each level is constrained by those below it.
Within the Western philosophical and scientific tradition, we normally project

the Logos/Physus dualism on to things. In this dualism one side usually dominates
the other to the point where the dominated side is devaluated. Instead of dualism we
support a non-dualistic view26 which recognizes the inherent trade-off between
dualistic extremes which form an interval that contains a point of reversibility
between opposites. This point of reversibility is similar to that which appears in the
spacetime interval described by Relativity Theory. Holons represent the chiasmic
reversibility between the extremes of viewing things as parts or wholes. This
recognizes the basic undecidability that exists between our models of phenomena
that shows up in the quandary over particle or wave interpretations, or in the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle that disallows simultaneous measurement of
position and momentum. Holonomics arises because we cannot decide whether
something is a part or a whole, that is because it is, in fact, both simultaneously
depending on the context. In the context of a systemic whole a component is a part,
yet in the context of a Meta-system, i.e. a field, the same component is a whole. The
inner ordering of things, so that they can be nested such that they fulfill simultaneous
synergetic roles, is the nomos that lies beyond the dichotomy of physus and logos
which allows us to recognize partial structures that overlap in the center of the
dichotomy. It is possible to construct a model of indeterminate particles that fulfill
both the locality and wave like properties simultaneously. But to build such a holistic
model it is necessary to relax some of our prerequisites of rigor and precision.
Hidden variable models of quantum phenomena27, such as David Bohm’s implicate
order model, are logically consistent as long as we relax our demands for the
25. Another term from Analytical Philosophy related to emergence is ‘Supervenience’. Basically Supervenience is an entailment
relation so that true emergence violates or goes beyond supervenience. One way to think about this is that God must do
more work over and above the supervenient entailment to produce the emergent level above any given level of phenom-
ena. See Guttenplan, S.[1994] A Companion to the Philosophy of the Mind. Oxford Blackwell, page 575. Our reference
for the use of the term ‘Emergence’ is Mead, G.H. [1932] The Philosophy of the Present. Chicago, U. Chicago Press.
Emergence has more social implications than mental implications.
26. Loy, David [1988] Nonduality. Yale U.P.
27. Hey, T. and Walters, P. [1987] The Quantum Universe. London, Cambridge U.P. See also Wolf, A. [1981] Taking the Quantum
Leap. N.Y., Harper and Row.
18
visibility of all aspects of the system. A similar transition takes place when we relax
our need to know definitely whether something is a whole or a part. This generates
the complementary system and meta-system views which make holons theoretically
visible. Phenomena are inherently holonomic, which is to say nondualistic, but it is
our socially constructed dualistic views of phenomena that generates the bifurcation
between the complementary system and meta-systemic views that overlay the
phenomena.
Meta-systems are described very well by George Bataille as “general” or

“global” as opposed to “restricted” economies.28 Arkady Plotnitsky29 makes the
connection between Bataille’s idea of a “global economy” and the complementarity
that Bohr30 sees in quantum theories, for instance, such as the uncertainty principle.
This yields the fundamental insight that meta-systems are always inherently
complementary where as systems are inherently unified wholes that appear as
gestalts. In fact, the gestalt itself is made up of a tension between figure and ground.
In this tension the visible figure is systemic while the background is meta-systemic.
But in the gestalt the figure is presented to us while the background disappears, so
the gestalt represents explicitly the system and implicitly the meta-system. The dual
of the gestalt is the flow in which the figure is pushed to the background as a
reference and the background is pulled forward as a flowing foreground. Similarly
in the proto-gestalt it is the mutually implicative context or situation that is brought
to the fore, while the individual pieces of the fragmented system recede from view,
so in that case it is the meta-system that is emphasized over the system. The dual of
the proto-gestalt is the proto-flow. As the proto-gestalt is composed of origin and
arena, so the proto-flow its dual is composed of source and surrounding all
encompassing stream, such as the mythical Oceanus. What is important is that both
viewpoints form a reversible complementary relationship with both aspects
contributing in each case. The point is that all meta-systems are intrinsically
complementary in contrast to the unification of the classical physical theories that
envision systems that can be rigorously consistent, complete or clear (well-formed)
simultaneously. Meta-systems (as proto-gestalt/proto-flows) preclude having
consistency, completeness or clarity all at the same time. The relaxation of the rigor
of the simultaneous completeness, consistency and clarity criteria allow us to see the
meta-systemic shadow that surrounds every system. The meta-system is, as Priest
would define it logically, either para-consistent para-complete, or has para-clarity.
Para-consistency entertains the possibility of active contradictions of antimonies.
Para-completeness entertains the possibility of a radical incompleteness in which
28. See George Bataille [1991] Accursed Share. Zone Books, New York.
29. See Arkady Plotnitsky [1994] Complementarity: Anti-epistemology After Bohr And Derrida. Duke University Press, Durham.;
[1993] In The Shadow of Hegel: Complementarity, History, And The Unconscious. University of Florida, Gainesville.;
[1993] Reconfiguraitons: Critical Theory And General Economy. University of Florida, Gainesville.
30. Dugald Murdoch [1987] Niels Bohr's Philosophy Of Physics. Cambridge University Press, New York.
19
fragmentation abounds. Para-clarity entertains the possibility of indistinctness where

multiple partial formalisms compete with each other as the means of representation
so that statements are not well-formed. Plotnitsky goes on to show that Derrida31,
following Godel32, has concentrated on pointing out the undecidability of classical
systems, and that this needs to be balanced by pointing out the indistinguishability
that interferes with our isolation of the classical unified and monolithic system.
Indistinguishability produces the inability to say when a system is complete and
undecidability prevents us from showing its consistency. This leads to what Graham
Priest33 calls para-consistency and para-completeness. Para-consistency allows
systems to have active contradictions and makes them into meta-systems. Para-
completeness allows systems to be incomplete which means they cannot be
distinguished from their meta-systemic grounds. Things that are both para-consistent
and para-complete are by definition the embodiments of the Other of reason: they are
monstrosities that are banned from science. However, our world abounds with
undecidable and indistinguishable ambiguities. We have not been able to reduce
them by the rigors of our disciplines to systematic wholes. They lack the
characteristics that we normally attribute to systems34 which, as Rescher says,
derives from our analogy to the organism.35 These monstrosities roam the landscape
of the meta-system and haunt the systems which attempt in vain to cut themselves
off from their contexts.
31. Derrida, Jacques [1976] Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD. Also by the same author Writing
and Differance [1978] University of Chicago. Dissemination [1981] University of Chicago
32. Godel, Kurt [1940] The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum-hypothesis with the Axioms of
Set Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.; See also, Nagel, E & Newman, J. [1958] Godel’s proof. New York
University Press, New York.
33. Priest, G., Routley, R, and Norman, J. [1989] Paraconsistant Logic. Philosophia Verlag, Munchen Hamden Wien.
34. See Rescher, N. [1979] Cognitive Systemization. Rowmann and Littlefield, Totowa, New Jersey. Pages 10-11. Rescher gives
the following characteristics of a ‘system’: wholeness, completeness, self-sufficiency, cohesiveness, consonance, archi-
tectonic, functional unity, functional regularity, functional simplicity, mutual supportiveness and functional efficacy.
35. See Rescher, N. [1979] Page 12. ibid.
20
Figure 1: Duality between Gestalt and Flow
GESTALT TEMPORAL FLOW
Foreground Streams
Background Reference
Background
Backdrop
Foreground
Figure
Synchronic Diachronic
Figure 2: Duality of the Gestalt/Flow
Gestalt Perceptual Gestalt Temporal Gestalt

example concept example: idea
Flow Time-lapse Frozen Temporal Flow
Flow across time pre- example feelings
sented in a single
image by superimpo-
sition
example: emotion
Figure 3: Duality of the Proto-Gestalt/Flow
Proto-Gestalt Origin Arena
Proto-Flow Source Oceanus
(encompassing stream)
Once we accept that all systems have meta-systemic shadows of undecidablity

and indistinguishability, which are complementary, and that all systems originate
and interact with other systems in these meta-systemic arenas, then we see that there
is a spectrum that exists from the extreme of pure meta-system to the other extreme
of pure system. A system is a gestalt whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
A meta-system (as proto-gestalt or proto-flow) has a lack, rather than a surplus, and
is a defective whole that is less than the sum of its parts. Between these two extremes
of surplus and lack, there are stages of assembly of the parts awash in the field of the
meta-system, until they are fully assembled into the system. When the parts are
21
assembled, then the emergent properties arise which give the system a wholeness
that is greater than the sum of the parts taken separately. These emergent properties
arise seemingly spontaneously and instantaneously out of the background of the
meta-system. For this reason, in the spectrum from system to meta-system, or in the
reverse direction, there is a discontinuity, or a quantum like effect, of sudden
emergence or vanishing of the surplus properties of the system out of the generalized
lack of these characteristics, that forms the background out of which these new
systemic characteristics arise. We can posit an idealized transformation which
assembles and disassembles these parts. That transformation may work in two
directions given any two complementary theories of objects. In other words, a given
complementarity may be viewed as either system or meta-system and transformed
into its opposite through a series of holonomic stages. But, because of the
discontinuity at the point of emergence this transformation is counter intuitive and
complex. This means that what looks like a fundamental unity (either as gestalt or
flow) from one perspective can be transformed into a composite (within a proto-
gestalt or a proto-flow). And what looks like a composite may be transformed into a
fundamental unity. This characteristic of the complementarity of systems and meta-
systems views has been dubbed the “duality” property in recent Superstring physical
“Theories of Everything.36” This “duality” property has been found to reduce the
many Superstring theories to a single theory seen through the fragmentation of its
many representations that otherwise appear as many independent theories. We can
relate this back to the view that wishes to see systems as hierarchies of sub-systems
as long as we realize that the complementarity of systems and meta-systems
perspectives is more basic than that hierarchy. When the parts are disassembled we
see down the hierarchy of subsystems and when they are assembled we have changed
our gaze to look up toward the higher unites of the hierarchy of systems. The
intersection of these two perspectives in a single thing converts it into a holon in
Koestler’s sense. But due to the complementarity of the two approaches we only
glimpse the holon by oscillating between these two approaches. There is no single
conceptual framework that captures the holon completely in isolation. Instead we
realize that there are a set of anomalous special systems that approximate the point
of perfect balance between the two complementary approaches. These special
systems, that allow us to transition back and forth between system and meta-system
views, do not form an infinite series, but instead the progression stops after just three
steps. Thus our extension of General Systems Theory defines just three holonomic
special systems that inhabit the interspace between systems and meta-systems. For
general systems theory meta-systems exist in the nether world beyond the limit of
understandability defined by the end of the progression of special systems. But meta-
systems themselves are infinitely complex and have an indeterminate number of
recursive37 levels of nesting which are also modeled by our mathematical analogies.
36. Kaku, M. [1994] Hyperspace: a scientific odyssey through parallel universes, time warps, and the tenth dimension. Oxford
University Press, New York. See also Kaku, M. and Trainer, J. [1987] Beyond Einstein. Bantam Books, New York.
22
This extension of General Systems Theory, place it in the context of a “global or

generalized economy,” which breaks the bonds of the restricted economy of the
system, that we normally struggle to maintain in order to rigorously assert the
isolation of our subject of study under the discipline of our domain. The fact that the
extension discovers a class of balanced anomalous special systems in the margins
between system and its meta-systemic milieu is an unexpected surprise. It is, in fact,
at the general systems and general meta-systems level, the equivalent of the
unexpected discontinuity of the arising properties of the emergent system. In other
words “General Systems Theory” as a restricted economy has emergent
characteristics which appear unexpectedly out of the general meta-systemic
economy of all possible specialized scientific disciplines which exist within the
rubric of the university. Holonomics becomes a new field that exists between all the
specialized sciences, that study systems of particular kinds and General Systems
Theory, that attempts to abstract from all these particular systems general principles
as Klir tries to do in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving38. Holonomics studies
the anomalous ultra-efficacious39 systems that appear in the interstices between
specialized sciences. Holonomics is therefore inherently interdisciplinary. We
cannot see holonomics from the myopic viewpoint of a single discipline but must
instead study at least two phenomena simultaneously in order to glimpse them. Thus,
holonomy corresponds to the phenomena observed by Bateson in Mind and
Nature,40 which is that we get a much higher quality of information if we study two
disciplines simultaneously, rather than one at a time. This higher quality of
information comes from the realization of synthetic and synergistic relations
between apparently unrelated but conjuncted information streams. This effect is an
example of what we will call ultra-efficaciousness in this paper. These synergies are
the subject of holonomy which can only be appreciated if we approach phenomena
from a nondual perspective. The point is that nonduality has a specific form -- it is
not just a vague fusion of perspectives, but instead has a very specific and
mathematically describable foundation, that may be discerned as underlying very
different phenomena. Holonomy attempts to find examples of this peculiar and
specific configuration in phenomena. We recognize that the configuration is rare
because these special systems studied by holonomics are anomalous. Yet, due to
their ultra-efficaciousness they are also pervasive. Their pervasiveness accrues from
the fact that, when they do appear by chance they are so much more efficient and
37. Sanchis, L.E. [1988] Reflexive Structures. N.Y. Springer Verlag.

38. op cit.
39. Efficaciousness is a combination of Efficiency and Effectiveness. Ultra-efficaciousness means highly efficient and effective
beyond what we might normally achieve given entropic pressures. Ultra-efficaciousness, Ultra-effectiveness and Ultra-
efficiency are more or less used interchangeably in what follows. The use of this term is taken from Arkady Plotnitsky in
Complementarities, but here the definition has been sharpened. We take this to be the dual of DifferAnce with its phases
of differing and deferring. It is DifferAnce that prevents efficaciousness. Differing disturbs efficiency and deferring dis-
turbs effectiveness.
40. Bateson, G. [1988] Mind and Nature: a necessary unity. Toronto; New York: Bantam Books.
23
effective than all other configurations that they persist while their competition fades,
due to the action of entropy to a greater degree as a pressure on all other
configurations. Holonomic systems have an inherent advantage over all other forms
of organization. This one fact about the anomalous special systems goes against all
our assumptions about natural phenomena. But nevertheless is true, because we find
systems in nature with these characteristics. For instance, the superfluids41 of
Helium4, and even Helium3 when paired. Superfulids show that quantum effects can
occur at macro-levels. They have extremely unusual properties that are anomalous
in micro nature, but nevertheless real and something our Western science must come
to terms with. The point is that these anomalous formations do not just occur in
nature alone, but appear in many phenomena at the macro level. Holonomics studies
these phenomena at the macro level which are analogous to superfluidity, that occurs
due to the conjunction of Helium atoms at a specific very low temperature. Examples
of similar phenomena at the macro level are the universe, life, consciousness
(including psychological flow42) and the social (including social flow43). Holonomy
is primarily concerned with far from equilibrium neg-entropic super-efficient and
highly effective special systems. Such special systems give rise to the emergent
unfolding of living and cognitive hyper-efficacious special systems. These in turn
give rise to the emergent unfolding of the ultra-efficient and ultra-effective socially
reflexive44 special systems. Eventually these decay into the meta-system and thus
loose their peculiar efficacious characteristics. However, these three levels of
emergent unfolding from super-special, to hyper-special, to ultra-special are
paradigmatic of many similar configurations of other rare and exceptional
phenomena, that may be usefully studied under the rubric of Holonomics, and that
appear in the interstices between many different specialized disciplines. The major
reason to focus on holons in the attempt to study their special nomos is to see how
nature violates its own rules in specific anomalous situations, especially the rules of
entropy locally. This leads to some very special situations, but what we find is that
all these cases have a common if anomalous form. So like the Feganbaum number
for chaos45 that is a constant in the bifurcation, there is a more complex order that is
specific to anomalous super, hyper and ultra-efficient special systems which is a
constant regardless of the specific realm in which they appear. It is a peculiarity of
nature that all special systems achieve holonomic harmony46 through conjunction
41. op.cit.
42. Csikszentmihalyi, M. [1990] Flow: The Psychology of Optimum Experience. N.Y., Harper and Row Pub.
43. I do not know of anyone who has posited the dual of psychological ‘flow’ in the social field before.
44. The term reflexive (reflexion) which is the English usage corresponding to the American usage of reflective (reflection) are in
this context taken to have two different senses. “Reflexive” means when antinomies cancel to yield formlessness while
“Reflection” means that thought stops in its tracks, i.e.the alternation not just between thoughts but between thought and
no-thought. These two sense like “differing and deferring” or “efficiency and effectiveness” belong together as the Same.
However, this is a difference that makes a difference in relevance.
45. Gleick, J. [1987] Chaos. N.Y. Viking Press.
24
following the form of the hyper-complex algebras. Now that a general theory of such
anomalous cases is available we can use this general theory as a basis for looking for
other examples in different realms of holons embodying their special nomos.
General Systems Theory as defined by George Klir in Architecture of Systems

Problem Solving47 identifies a series of epistemological levels by which formal
structural systems48 are defined. These epistemological levels are the object, source,
data and generative systems. The levels bifurcate into infinite regresses through the
production of meta-structures and meta-processes. Meta-structures allow different
patterns within patterns within patterns while the meta-processes control the changes
in the structural templates at various meta-process levels in time. Certain chiasmic
combinations of Structure and Process are considered by Klir in this epistemological
framework as well.
Figure 4: Klir’s Epistemological Hierarchy
Structural Models MetaModels

infinite regress infinite regress
structural meta structural meta-meta

structural S2F
generative
MSFgenerative
structural meta SMF M2F generative
generative
structural SF meta structural

MF
meta
structural meta-meta
structural S2D generative MSD structural meta data SMD generative M2D data
data data
SD meta
F formal MD
structural structural generative meta
MSS structural SMS data meta-meta
structural
source S2S data source system structural
M2S source
meta source
SS D data MS
meta
structural system
source source
S source
system
Klir’s set of model types for general systems theory.
object
O system
We have extended49 the epistemological framework of Klir to include an
autopoietic level and a reflexive learning level beyond the dissipative generative
46. Chung Ying-Cheng [1989] “On Harmony as Transformation: Paradigms from the I Ching” in Journal of Chinese Philosophy.
Volume 16; p.125-158.
47. Klir, G. [1985] Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Plenum Press, New York.
48. Wilden, A. [1972] System and Structure: essays in communication and exchange. London, Tavistock Publications.
25
level in his epistemological hierarchy. The reflexive learning level encompasses the
meta-levels of learning posited by Bateson in Steps to the Ecology of the Mind50.
The levels end in the definition of the unthinkable as what occurs beyond the fourth
meta-level of learning. Through this extension we first defined three special systems
levels associated with the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems. Now we
explore the underlying mathematical analogies that support the conceptual definition
of the special systems.
Here is quoted the relevant section from the authors previous attempt to extend
Klir’s Epistemological Framework in ASPS that appeared in the IJGS article51
which first defined the special systems. [Begin excerpt.]
1.1 ARTIFICIAL LIVING KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM
To have deep understanding of a generative system requires a knowledge representation scheme

to be overlaid on the generative system. That supplemental system displays understanding of the
workings of the generative system. It needs to ultimately be living/cognitive or what is called
Autopoietic. Autopoiesis means self-producing or self-organizing52. Thus we posit that the next
level is most like an organism that is the root metaphor for the system. It is not just a knowledge
level added to the generative but the knowledge is activated by being the self-knowledge of an
autonomous being. This level actually allows us to understand software better because it is the
next higher meta-level above software called the proto-technical and operating at the next higher
meta-level of Being which is Wild Being as defined by Merleau-Ponty.
When we think of software we notice that the attempt is made to define it in such a way to get rid
of all the paradoxes like self-modifying code and spaghetti goto statements and others. When we
move to the Artificial Intelligence and Life level beyond software what we see is a mosaic of
techniques with nothing like methodologies for us to hang our hats on. Each AI or ALife
technique competes with all the others in a bewildering array of sophisticated but very basic
programming techniques mostly realized at the implementation level. After studying this area for
a long time I realized that there was a reason there were no equivalents to minimal methods for AI
and ALife. That is because all the paradoxes that were pushed out of the software layer by the
discipline of Software Engineering were pushed into AI and ALife. Each of these techniques
revolved around some paradox in the software layer and because they were paradoxes they could
never be resolved into a simple method that is easily represented. All the monstrous aspects of
software are collected here and combined to create specific techniques that will use the side
effects of software to create imitations of life or cognition.
49. Excerpt from Kent Palmer, “Software Engineering Design Methods and General Systems Theory” International Journal of
General Systems [Vol 24 (1-2) 1996 pp.43-94].
50. Bateson, G. [1987] Steps to the Ecology of the Mind: collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology.
Northvale, N.J. : Aronson. See also, Bateson, G. [1980] Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Bantam Books, New
York.
51. International Journal of General Systems (IJGS) vol24 (1-2) 1996 pp 43-94
52. Jantsch, E. [1980] The Self-Organizing Universe. N.Y., Perganon Press.
26
Another point about this level is that it uses software as a enabling machine instead of hardware.
Because of that it is free to create theoretical structures that are completely disconnected from
reality. Thus Virtual worlds arise as the abodes of artificial living and intelligent creatures that
can be completely disconnected from any kind of recognizable reality enforced by the world we
live in mundanely. When this detachment from reality is combined with network technology then
you get the advent of cyberspace as the realm of all possible virtual worlds. Within these worlds
artificial intelligent and living creatures roam which will be created by the opaque AI and ALife
techniques that arise from the paradoxes in the software layer. Combinations of opaque
techniques will render these creatures even more opaque and incomprehensible. Thus we are
engaged in creating alien creatures within our virtual worlds which we can never understand.
They are inherently incomprehensible since they are created using all the techniques banished
from software engineering because they are not trusted to produce assured results in the real
world.
Between the fantasy virtual world and the real world stands what Geleterner calls the “mirror
world53” which attempts to render an image of the real world in virtual reality. Mirror worlds
stand between the real world and the fantasy worlds disconnected from reality. Mirror worlds
give us more knowledge about the actual world than we would normally possess. They are
worlds with superabundance of information and real-time connection to the actual world. They
are the mirror between our world and the fantasy worlds that depart from reality in significant
ways. We can say that the mirror worlds are super-real and form the reversible interface between
reality and irreality. For instance a fantasy world may be a world where a fundamental
assumption that is made in the designated as real world is changed to see what would happen.
These fantasy worlds give us the possibility of conducting experiments in worlds that do not exist
which will shed more light on the world that does exist through intersubjective agreement. It is
through mirror worlds and fantasy worlds that our ability to socially construct worlds is unleashed
into realms that it was impossible to enter before. These mirror worlds and fantasy worlds will
have a profound impact on the designated as real world as a hyper extension which when treated
as part of the designated as real world actually has profound effects on that to which it is
supplemented. This is because all of these worlds function in the realm of Hyper Being which as
Derrida has shown has the form of a supplement which changes the meaning of the thing to which
it is attached.
At this level generators become imitations of living knowing organisms. That is they imitate the
most sophisticated systems we know which are living creatures. Thus it is only at this level that
we have a true attempt to portray systems in relation to the root metaphor of organisms with
cognitive capacity. These organisms have a fundamental ability to learn and adapt. And this
must be taken into account in our model. Therefore an important part of this level of
manifestation are the meta-levels of learning which were first defined by Bateson54. There are
four of these meta-levels of learning which scale the ladder of meta-levels until they reach the
unthinkable which lies at the fifth meta-level beyond all forms of learning.
53. Gelertner, D. H. [1991] Mirror worlds, or, The day software puts the universe in a shoebox-- : how it will happen and what it
will mean. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Bateson Steps to the Ecology of the Mind op. cit.
27
1.1.1. LEARNING SYSTEM
The knowledge system may learn about other systems or may expand to cover a domain of
systems rather than a single system of a particular kind. Thus Learning systems supplement
Knowledge systems. When software systems display learning then they cease to be fragile with
respect to changes in their environment. A learning software system may also exhibit this
learning with respect to itself producing internal images of itself and learning about itself.
1.1.2. META-LEARNING SYSTEMS
These systems as Bateson shows learn to learn. Learning to learn means exploring new ways of
learning. This allows such a software system to cope with discontinuous changes in its
environment and within itself. When we learn to learn we increase our learning capacity and also
gain new learning skills. Such a software system would be very robust with respect to its
environment being able to cope with environmental changes and changes in itself that are
unexpected.
1.1.3. META-META-LEARNING SYSTEMS
Learning how to learn can be supplemented by Learning at the next meta-level which means
changing paradigms of learning how to learn. There may be different paradigms of how to learn
to learn which is to say different approaches to learning to learn. At this meta-meta-level the
difference between self and environment become irrelevant. The environment and the self is
considered a single meta-system where the environment learns from the self and vice versa. At
this meta-levels the differences in paradigms in learning become important and the ability to
switch paradigms of learning so that new self-other configurations become possible becomes
important.
1.1.4. META-META-META-LEARNING SYSTEMS
Bateson says that the next level is one in which ones whole worldview changes and that this is the
highest meta-level of learning. Beyond this is only the unthinkable. It is at this level that the
projection of the world by the self-other meta-system is accomplished. The key feature of this
level is the appearance of the emergent event. The emergent event is the possibility of a
genuinely new thing to come into existence. A meta-system that operates at this meta-level could
handle the appearance of the genuinely emergent event. The genuinely emergent event is defined
as one that moves through all four meta-levels of Being as it enters the clearing-in-Being and
becomes part of the World.
An example of a Meta-meta-meta learning system is Western science. In school we are taught

things in a certain pedagogical style. But as we encounter different teachers we realize that there
are different ways of learning and we attempt to learn how to learn in these different ways. For
instance, there are ways of learning suited to those who are language oriented, graphically
oriented, and kinetically oriented. But we may combine these different ways of learning to
achieve particular learning effects that are difficult to achieve in any other way. As an example,
audio visual materials may be combined with an exercise. But eventually as we begin to achieve
mastery of subjects we realize that we need to produce our own synthesis of the materials in order
28
to show mastery. These syntheses appear like paradigms in that they go beyond the information
given to posit theories which are not contained in what we have learned to learn. When we can
advance these paradigms then we have in effect reached the fourth meta-level of learning where
we advance the state of the discipline in which we are engaged. Finding these cutting edges at the
fourth meta-level of learning is very difficult. In fact one can say that the whole problem of
intellectual advance is to locate these cutting edges and make progress with respect to the
disciplines at those edges. Persons who do not learn to learn to learn to learn cannot locate these
cutting edges. Those who do locate them and contribute to our understanding at those cutting
edges are the ones who bring genuinely new things into existence. They are the ones who
transform the world.
1.1.5. THE UNTHINKABLE
The unthinkable is the meta-level beyond which we can create learning representations.
Notice that we have gone beyond Klir’s original formation to add levels of learning until we
reached the unthinkable. We note that the unthinkable is equivalent to the infinite meta-levels to
which structural and process models ramify and fuse.
We have also noted that when we reach the infinite meta-structures or meta-process models or the
unthinkable we have reached a point identical with the “essence of manifestation” described by
Henry that is the point of pure immanence which never manifests.
The unthinkable may be considered identical with the Buddhist non-concept non-experience
called Emptiness. Emptiness is itself empty. It is the expression of the absolute middle between
all nihilistic opposites. Emptiness is the center of the vortex around which the dynamic of
worldview projection at each of the meta-levels of learning revolves. Understanding Emptiness is
essential to understanding the projection of the worldview because Emptiness balances the whole
action of worldview projection.
1.2. WINGS TO INFINITY
Now we will explore each of the wings that take us to infinity of process and structural meta-
levels and see how they function at the multiple levels of the epistemological hierarchy. In what
follows the word LEVEL can be replaced with any of the following levels we have discovered:
Figure 5:
LEVELS: Object
Source
Data
Generative
Knowledge/Living
Learning1
Models Learning2
Structures
Processes Learning3 Form/Pattern
Learning4
Unthinkable
29
1.2.1. STRUCTURAL LEVEL SYSTEM
For software the structure appears as multiple whole-part relations exemplifying the relations
between patterns and forms.
1.2.2. META-STRUCTURAL LEVEL SYSTEM
These whole-part relations become ever more inter-embedded. At the first level of inter-
embedding there are structures within structures.
1.2.3. META-META-STRUCTURAL LEVEL SYSTEM
At the next interembedding level there are structures within structures within structures. This
regress is infinite because we can imagine structures embedded within each other to infinite levels
of logical typing. Ultimately these meta-levels of structures approach the unthinkable, which is a
complexity of structure beyond which the human mind cannot conceive.
1.2.4. MODELED LEVEL SYSTEM
Models are the temporal structuring by which the spatial structuring is controlled and changed
over time. We call these process models.
1.2.5. META-MODELED LEVEL SYSTEM
We can think of processes within processes controlling structures over time.

1.2.6. META-META-MODELED LEVEL SYSTEM
There is also an infinite regress for models of processes as we can think of processes within
processes infinitely. These also approach the infinity of meta-levels of process which is
unthinkable.
1.3. FUSION OF PROCESS AND STRUCTURE
There is an interference between our structural and process model reifications which sees them as
fused. This fusion represents the timespace causal view of the system. In one fused view
structure dominates time whereas in the other time dominates structure. These are equivalent to
the proto-imaginaries found in Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form. We follow Merleau-Ponty in
calling these points of fusion between process and structure chiasms or points of reversibility. In
fact, we will coin a new term called intaglio for the fused relation between process and structure.
Intaglio is the engraving of an image within a stone so that it appears three dimensional usually
through the other side of the transparent stone. Many times the intaglio is frosted to produce the
appearance of solidity to the image. There are sculptures that exist made of glass where intaglio is
used on both sides to give the appearance of intertwined figures connected thought the medium of
the glass. Many times these are figures of men and women intertwined in some exotic fashion. In
other words in these intaglio sculptures what exists is a fusion of the figures thought the
connecting medium. The figures themselves have no reality other than the medium that holds the
carving of the intaglio. So it is with the fusion of process and structure. They do not exist as
separate entities but only exist as the chiasm or reversibility between them. We can talk of this
30
fusion at three levels.

•PATTERN/FORM CHIASM = structuralized forms
•LIVING/COGNITIVE CHIASM = autopoietic systems
•SOCIAL/PSYCHIC CHIASM = reflexive systems
Here we understand that form and pattern together produces structures of forms and that
processes model these over time. But form and pattern also have an intaglio relation in which one
cannot be completely separated from the other. In that relation they exhibit interferences which
reveal the trace structures below the level of manifestation of form and pattern. In those trace
structures the intaglio of form and pattern as interference patterns between disorder and order
appear. It is this trace level that give us the foundation for the understanding of the autopoietic
systems that imitate living/cognitive organisms. The living and the cognitive also produce a
fusion of process and structure that has a qualitative difference from process or structure in
isolation. The autopoietic theory of Maturana and Varela display these features of reversibility
very well. However, these theories break down when we move to consider the social. Thus the
social must be a new level of organization that goes beyond the autopoietic. Autopoietic system
maintain their organization homeostatically. A reflexive system is defined as the next level
beyond the autopoietic and it is seen as heterodynamic instead of homeostatic with respect to its
organization. This means a reflexive system is ecstatic in projecting the world and changes its
organization dynamically to different organizational regimes. Thus the reflexive system can
accept emergent events as the way the worldview is projected changes radically over time. We
say that such a fusion of process and structure lies right on the brink of the unthinkable because it
accepts changes from the region of what is incomprehensible in relation to it and deals with these
changes which are called emergent events. At this level there is a chiasm between the social and
the psychic. From one point of view reflexive systems are social but from another point of view
they are psychological. Thus there is a psychosocial dual-intaglio at the level of the reflexive
heterodynamic system. The understanding of heterodynamic systems is the furthest reaches of all
systems theory.
Each of these levels of dual intaglio that we have been laying out are extensions of General
Systems Theory. They lay beyond the understanding of structural-process fusion. Structural-
process and process-structural fusion exist at each level of the epistemological framework. We
can view these merely as reversible process and structural modes of the framework or we can look
beyond that to see the qualitative difference between the fused and the unfused aspects of
structure and process. This qualitative difference points us toward the special systems that
emerge from General Systems Theory. These are the systems theories regarding dissipative,
autopoietic and reflexive systems. They appear as the fusion of process and structure from the
timespace perspective. This fusion has a qualitative difference that expresses itself quantitatively
as well55. We see here that Dissipative systems can be looked at from the point of view of the
object, source, data, and generative systems. The Autopoietic system can be looked at from the
point of view of all these systems as well as from the point of view of Knowledge and Life. The
55. For further details see the author’s two series of papers “On the Social Construction of Emergent Worlds” and “Steps Toward
the Threshold of the Social” contained in Autopoietic Reflexive Systems Theory. (unpublished manuscripts; see http://di-
alog.net:85/homepage/refauto2.htm)
31
levels of learning are the province of the reflexive system and can be considered up to the point of
unthinkability.
Now that we have defined the special systems and their chiasmic fusion we can go back to
consider the generic fusion from the process and structural perspectives.
1.3.1. STRUCTURAL MODELED LEVEL SYSTEM
At each level there is a fusion which emphasizes structure over process and one which
emphasizes process over structure. These take on a different quality from the timespace
viewpoint that reveals the special systems that emerge from GST. However if we go back and
look at the structural-modeled system that exists at each level from the spacetime viewpoint we
see that when space dominates time we get the equivalent of a knowledge representation system
as in Prolog where connections in space are more important than the processing in time. In
knowledge representation schemes the knowledge is coded into structures which are unified by a
single logical algorithm. There is only one process and multiple knowledge representations on
which it does its work.
1.3.2. MODELED STRUCTURAL LEVEL SYSTEM
When time dominates space from a spacetime perspective we see that we get a normal relation in
programming between processing and memory where the processing controls the memory rather
than the configuration of memory controlling the processing. But here we have an interpreted
system where data and processing are more intimately connected rather than a precompiled
program which operates on completely separate data.
Knowledge representation that emphasizes space over time is independent of interpretation

which emphasizes time over space but still allows fusion of data and processing. These two
fusions are orthogonal to each other in every case at each level of the epistemological framework.
So at the data level there can be control data and non-control data. This means that non-control
data is dominated by processes while control data dominates processes and contains in the data
stream the structure that controls processes.
At the generative level we see that data can be coded into tables which control processing or we
can allow processing to contain many more control statements and we can code the functioning of
the software into source code algorithm.
At the knowledge level we get the difference between Prolog which uses the unification algorithm
to process static knowledge structures and Lisp which does its processing on lists where the list
itself can be the program being executed. Thus list processing algorithms dominate the data
representation but they are fused. Prolog expresses this fusion in the way it rewrites its
knowledge representation causing the unification algorithm to give different results from pass to
pass.
At the levels of learning we can either emphasize the materials being learned or the learning
process itself. If we emphasize the materials being learned then the drive to learn is external and
32
we call this teaching. If we emphasize the process of learning over the materials learned then the
drive is internal and we call this self-realization which Maslow called a drive. This ramifies to all
the meta-levels of learning. The drive to learn at any meta-level can be either internal or external
but whatever the driving force learning has to be reciprocal and social. When we see this learning
mirrored within the individual we call that the psychological realm. The psychological and the
social are mirror opposites.
The fusion of the structure and process represents yet another way in which the unthinkable enters
the epistemological framework. We already noted that the framework itself extends past the
generative to the knowledge level and on up the hierarchy of the meta-levels of learning to the
unthinkable. Then we saw that at each epistemological level there are two wings of extension to
infinity. The point of infinity for both wings of meta-level extension is the same and is identical
with the unthinkable. Now we see that each wing fuses with the other wing of the epistemological
framework in a way that can either be seen causally from the point of view of timespace or in
terms of separation from the viewpoint of spacetime. When we interpreted fusion from the point
of view of timespace we recognized the levels of chiasm related to the generative system, the
knowledge and living level and the levels of learning. These we defined as the special systems
that emanate from General Systems Theory. The we turned around and saw that these fusions of
the wings can be seen from spacetime viewpoint instead in terms of separation and we saw how
that meant the difference between coding action into spatial configurations rather than writing
algorithms and we can see how these may be expressed at every level of the epistemological
hierarchy. But the reversibility between the spacetime and timespace views of fusion also points
us toward the essence of manifestation because of the qualitative and quantitative differences
between these two views of fusion that produce a blind spot in our view of chiasmically fused
aspects of systems. We cannot understand easily the connection between timespace-like fusion
and spacetime-like fusion of the two wings that tend toward and infinity of meta-levels.
33
Figure 6: Definition of General Systems Theory Dual (Self Generating System) via the Kinds of Being.a
Wild Being Existence Hyper Being
Chiasm Finite Unthinkability
process/structure Beyond the meta-level of learning

interferences internal
{Proto-flow Source} {Proto-gestalt Origin}
Emergent Meta-System
‘Magicians’ Self Generating System
meta-system
proto-gestalt/flow
Reversible Aspects Infinite Complexity
process over structure Separate structure and process

structure over process wings of meta-level
interferences external
{Proto-gestalt Arena} {Proto-flow Oceanus}

a. This table has been altered from the original presentation.
In effect this shows that we need to understand better the extension of General Systems Theory
into the realm of the special systems. The means for doing this is Software Engineering because
it is software engineering that provides the connection to computability of systems. The special
systems appear when we consider the fusion of structure and process from the causal or timespace
perspective. They do not appear when we consider the spacetime perspective on fusion. Instead
there we get a view of the computability of the combination of structure and process. Thus the
special systems are bound to computability in a mysterious fashion which is not clear as we
reverse our perspective from timespace to spacetime emphasis. In effect this calls for the
development of a computational meta-system orthogonal to General Systems Theory. That
computational meta-system is embodied in Goertzel’s ‘Magician’ Systems first proposed in his
work Chaotic Logic56. If we see the expansion of the epistemological framework toward the
unthinkable and the spreading of the wings of meta-levels of structure and process toward infinity
as the dual opposites of the timespace and spacetime views of fusion then we see that these two
duals define an interface which is orthogonal to GST within which the dual to GST must exist.
That dual must deal with chaotic processes in a structured way which is computable. Goertzel’s
‘Magician’ Self-generating System is the only candidate yet found that fulfills the conditions that
this dual must fulfill. And it turns out that the ‘Magician’ meta-system is intimately connected to
the special systems when it is expressed meta-algebraically. ‘Magician’ systems also have the
characteristic that they express formally all the different kinds of Being. So ‘Magician’ systems
provide us with a model of the balance of heterodynamics and homeostasis within the realm of
56. See figure 15.
34
dynamical dissipation.
Therefore we see that General Systems Theory as the theory of gestalts or showing and hiding
systems must have a dual which expresses the meta-system and meta-gestalt within which gestalts
form. We posit that this dual is the ‘Magician’ meta-system and that it is defined negatively by
the relation of the fall into the essence of manifestation via infinite meta-levels and finite meta-
levels to the embedding of fusion between process and structure seen in terms of spacetime and
timespace. This reversibility between two views of fusion and two approaches to the essence of
manifestation defines possibility of the ‘Magician’ meta-system negatively. It is by studying the
relation of the ‘Magician’ meta-system and the special systems in this context that we realize their
inner connection. And that connection is made possible by computability and ultimately by
software as an embodiment within the matrix of spacetime and timespace.
GST is formed completely in the realm of Pure Presence. But it attempts to deal with processes in
terms of models of temporal structuring as opposed to spatial structuring. Thus as a formal-
structural system it gives us a view of processes while attempting to not fall into Process Being.
When we realize that systems are gestalts of showing and hiding processes we fall into Process
Being and we must reinterpret GST within that context. When we extend the GST
epistemological framework we see that it truncates in the unthinkable which is either finite or
infinite. We have seen that this is an expression of the essence of manifestation and that is what
takes GST to the third meta-level of Hyper Being where the software essence also resides. At that
level we see GST and Software Engineering as duals. But then when we look at the
Epistemological Framework we see that there are nodes of fusion between process and structure.
We can see these in terms of spacetime or timespace as we look at the embedding of the GST
epistemological framework in the timespace/spacetime matrix. These two views show us the
place of the special systems that emerge from GST with their chiasmic relations between fused
components. But if we look at them from another angle we get a view of the computability of
these fused structures seen externally in terms of process and structure. These two views of
fusion indicate the presence of Wild Being which is the highest meta-level of Being beyond
Hyper Being. Within the gap between fusion and the essence of manifestation the possibility of a
dual to GST arises and we posit that this dual is a ‘Magician’ meta-system that combines the
inscription of traces with the computational emulation of chaotic processes. We posit that
‘Magicians’ are the meta-system which combines all the special systems into a single proto-
gestalt from which all the gestalts of systems arise within the clearing-in-Being. ‘Magician’
systems combine all the kinds of Being into a single computable formal meta-system. The meta-
system of ‘Magicians’ is the dual of the structural-formal system of GST and it is software than
provides the interface between them as the means of conferring computability to both.
The discovery of a dual to General Systems Theory is a surprising result which needs further
study in order to explore all of its ramifications. That dual is a meta-system that defines the basis
for the emanation of all the systems that arise within General Systems Theory. This dual of GST
can only be appreciated from the point of view articulated by the definition of the different kinds
of Being. But once this perspective on systems that looks explicitly at their ontological basis has
been established it becomes clear that GST needs underpinnings that attach it to all the more
fundamental ontological levels. ‘Magician’ meta-systems perform that role. They unify all
special systems theories and provide a meta system that defines their ontological basis. It is clear
35
that a major extension to the foundations of General Systems Theory has been proposed based on
these ontological ramifications of the fragmentation of Being which relates the most general
system to a computational infrastructure and also to the thresholds of complexity that provide the
basis for the emanation of dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems.
36
Figure 7: Relation between Special Systems and Epistemological Hierarchy of Klir
Unthinkable
reflexive L4
special
system
L3 autopoietic
special
system
L2
dissipative
MSL chiasm SML 2L special
S2L M
system
SL ML
L1earning
MSK chiasm SMK M2K
S2K
SK MK
A utopoietic
chiasm
S2F MSF SMF M2F
SF chiasm MF
S2D MSD SMD M2D
SD F MD
2S MSS chiasm SMS
S M2S
SS D MS
S
Structural Models Process MetaModels
[End Excerpt.]
37
What we need to realize is that there are different thresholds of organization

to perceptual and conceptual phenomena. We normally concentrate on the forms, or
outlines, of things as the principle level for understanding things. Structural-formal
systems posit an organization on the level of content via the positing of a structural
micro-formalism such as that we find in Klir’s work where data contents are
structured in variables57. We also sometimes posit the systems level where we see
the forms in a supra-formalism which is equivalent to a gestalt. Formalism allows
deductions from rules. Structuralism adds the ability to transform across
discontinuities over time. Systems give us the ability to consider part-whole
relations. Structure is explanatory while System is descriptive. Explanation is
weaker than proof, and description weaker than explanation. Formalism on the other
hand is brittle and superficial because it cannot handle either time nor emergent
phenomena. When we combine all three of these ways of looking at things into a
single model as Klir does we get a formal-structural system58 perspective on things.
But this series of emergent thresholds of our modeling of things does not have to stop
there. We need to recognize beyond that a further series of levels which are called
meta-system, domain, world, universe, pluriverse. In this essay we are only
concerned with distinguishing the system from the meta-system level and
recognizing the special systems that serve as a hinge between them. However, these
other emergent ontological levels also play a role in the comprehension of the
nestings of the structures of the world.
57. Klir, G.J. and Uyttenhove, H.J.J. [1976] “Computerized Methodology for Structure Modeling” in Annals of Systems Research,
Volume 5, pp. 29-66.
58. See also, Wilden, Antony [1972, 1980] System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange. Travistock Publica-
tions, London. See also, Salthe, S.N. [1985] Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. Colum-
bia University Press, New York.
38
Figure 8: Ontological Levels

59
Pluriverse
Kosmos60
World61 \
Domain62 > languaging
Meta-system63 /
Reflexive Special System64 \
Autopoietic Special System65 > hinge (special systems)
Dissipative Special System66 /
System67 \ formal
Form68 > structural
Pattern69 / system
Monads70
Facets71
In this hierarchy the lower four levels take their articulation from the Kinds of
72
Being . When we look at the substrata beyond form we find the level of pattern
which includes structure, process, sign, and value. The substrata beyond pattern is
called by Derrida ‘Traces’ and the substrata beyond traces are variously called
propensities or tendencies.
Goodwin in How the Leopard Changed it’s Spots73 talks about “active media”
and describes DNA as controlling the parameters of the unfolding of active media
along its lines of natural propensity. Thus we can think of the facets as the elements
59. The pluriverse is the same as the many worlds interpretation in physics. It is the multitude of universes beyond our universe.
In Indo-European mythology it was represented by the worldtree: Yddrassil.
60. The Kosmos is our universe which is projected upon and differentiated by all other possible universes within the pluriverse.
The pluriverse is beyond our kenning but the universe is everything that exists within our kenning.
61. The World is defined by our languaging. As with the Whorfian Hypothesis we believe that different languages create different
worlds that highlight different aspects of the Kosmos.
62. The domain is set up by specialized sub-languages under the auspices of a natural language. Thus, the special languages of
different disciplines produce different perspectives on the world and create sub-domains within the world. The domain of
art, sometimes called the ‘art world’ is an example.
63. Meta-systems exist between languages and the systems we see in the world. Meta-systems are very nebulous but exist as en-
vironments, contexts, situations, milieus, ecologies, etc.
64. The reflexive special system is the foundation for the social within the world.
65. The autopoietic special system is the foundation for the organism within the world.
66. The dissipative special system is the foundation for the organ, or what Deleuze and Guattari call partial objects (following M.
Kline’s definition of object relations) or desiring machines. These are the effective constituents of individuals.
67. Systems are primarily understood as gestalts.
68. Forms are understood in terms of G. Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form [1972] Julian Press, New York.
39
which have propensity or tendency in the active media. The monad may be seen as
an articulation based on a particular set of tendencies. The pattern is a configuration
of monads. Think of the monads as the imaginary isolatable quality contents of
experience. Patterns are a configuration of these isolatable units which cannot in
actuality be pinned down. The form is a shape or behavior made up of these patterned
contents that articulate tendencies of the active media. There are active media at
various ontic emergent levels. In the case of the cell particular forms are produced
by guiding the patterning process that arises from actively articulated tendencies in
the media itself. Everything does not come from the DNA. Instead, it is the inter-
relation between the DNA code and the active media of the cell which includes the
natural molecular interactions that allow the creature to arise and take form in the
unfolding of the physus. What surprises us is that this leads to the concomitant
unfolding of the Logos as well.
The upper four levels take their articulation from the ‘Having’. Having is
composed of ownership, domination, and use. All three of these apply to the level of
the Domain. We successively lose these properties as we move upward toward the
pluriverse. At the level of world we lose ownership. Worlds are held in common and
not owned by anyone person. At the level of Kosmos we also lose the ability to
manage so that we only have use of the discovered Kosmos and cannot own it or
dominate it. Finally the Pluriverse is a ‘reserve’ which cannot be owned, dominated
or used. Being and Having enter the complex of the Indo-European languages
together and are intimately connected. Our hierarchy shows the transition from the
internal differentiation of Being into Meta-levels toward the differentiation of
Having. Between Being and Having the difference between System and Meta-
systems appears and within that difference the Special Systems take root. Here we
are particularly concerned with the nature of the System/Meta-system distinction as
the basis for understanding the Special Systems. However, it is important to realize
that this distinction takes place within an overall context of the difference between
Being and Having that we accept from our Indo-European linguistic roots.
Take the example of a software application. We treat the application as a
system. But we recognize that we need an operating system to support the resource
and computational needs of the application system and also to allow different
69. Patterns take the form of Structures, Processes, Signs and Values. Klir treats Structures and Processes in his Epistemological
Hierarchy. He calls Processes ‘Meta-models’. Structures are also the subject of Structuralism in the work of Levi-Strauss
{The Savage Mind [1966] University of Chicago Press) or Piaget (Structuralism [1970] Basic Books, New York). This
is the level beneath of the symbol where the sign flourishes so it is studied in terms of semiotics. Structures are micro-
formalisms that organize the distinctions between different kinds of content. Signs and Values are treated by Baudrillard
in his Critique of the Economy of the Sign. Jung also includes sign and value as the major ingredients of the psyche.
70. Monads are the lowest distinguishable unit of sensation which Husserl called Hyle. It is the content that is distinguished and
organized into patterns by structures.
71. Emergent meta-systems theory discovers that monads are faceted, this is where the many worlds come from is the fragmenta-
tion or faceting of the monads. Thus, we begin to think of monads as summaries over possible worlds.
72. To be explained below.
73. Goodwin, B.C. [1994] How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
40
applications to interact. Operating systems are indeed software meta-systems that are
the origin and arenas for the existence and interaction of software application
systems. We can see this same distinction when we think of the relation between the
Universal Turing Machine and the specific Turing Machine. A Universal Turing
Machine74 contributes the Meta-systemic aspects that allow different Turing
Machine embodiments to exist in the same computational environment. Universal
Turing Machines are meta-systems within which Turing Machines can be embodied
and even interact if one either produces output from one that feeds through the tape
to the other or else provides for multi-tasking of Turing Machines within the
Universal Turing Machine architecture75. Gurevich generalized the cumbersome
Turing machine formalism into an Abstract State Machine specification method76
that is extremely useful in capturing the behavioral models that are the interpretation
of requirements for a system. This method produces layers of virtual machines
through a process of refinement. The interaction between the environment and the
virtual layered machines may be captured by interacting sets of rules. Rules that
describe the environment are couched as constraints while the rules that describe the
application represent causal chains. Rules provide a good way to capture behavior
and the constraints on behavior because they synthesize all four methodological
viewpoints (agent, function, event and data) and the multiple layers of information
(data, information, knowledge, wisdom) into a single synergetic construct. From this
we can see that not only are meta-systems a familiar phenomena but we can embody
them computationally. Also we can now understand the intrinsic lack that Meta-
systems have. Operating systems without applications are useless. Universal Turing
Machines without tapes with specific Turing Machines on them are useless. Meta-
systems have an inherent lack that is only filled by the provision of systems.
Likewise Systems need an arena in which to operate and their environment is just as
important to their functioning as their own internal structure. Via the environment
they communicate with other systems, garner resources, and interact through mutual
actions. The law of requisite variety enunciated by Ashby77 calls for the mutual
adequation of the nested systems with a meta-systemic field. The surplus of the
gestalt system whole exactly compensates for the lack that exists in the meta-
systemic environment. In fact, they need to be fitted to each other like any
complementary pair of things that are made for nesting and to work together. The
difference is that in this complementary paring of system and meta-system the
system is a unified whole while the meta-system is itself intrinsically complementary
in the sense that Bohr saw in our models of quantum phenomena. In other words, in
the meta-system there is an exclusive showing and hiding of characteristics78 that
74. Herken, R. [1988] The Universal Turing Machine, Oxford University Press, New York.
75. Manthey, Michael “Toward an Information Mechanics” IEEE 1994 0-8186-6715-X
76. aka Evolving Algebras (the old name of this formal method)
77. Ashby, W.R. [1961] An Introduction To Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London.
41
does not occur in the system. The objects are figures that are shown and hidden in
the temporal gestalt of the system’s dynamism. But the face that we see of the system
at each point in the system’s evolution exists within the meta-systemic field that has
an implicit or implicate ordered dynamism that is only seen in the breaks between
systemic regimes in which the objects are reordered or different sets of objects
appear. The system has coincident and overlapping characteristics whereas the meta-
system has co-exclusive and non-overlapping properties. This difference defines the
surplus of one and the lack inherent in the other.
The system and meta-system are complementary ways of looking at any

matter. They are inverse duals of each other in the sense that what one has the other
lacks. Meta-systems are inherently split into complementary properties like the
characteristics related to its role as origin and its role as arena of exchange. Systems
on the other hand are apparently unified. But systems within a meta-system may
stand in complementary relations to each other. The complement of a system is the
anti-system. The anti-system may be embodied or may merely be all the other
possible systems, other than a particular system, within the meta-system. If there is
a specific anti-system then all the other possible systems become classified as the
non-system. The Greimas square79 allows us to construct the anti-non-system which
holds the position of the “Other” with respect to the system. We may construct a
chiasmic relation by reversing the anti-non-system and getting the non-anti-system.
This chiasmic reversal within the Other gives us our access to non-duality. This
chiasm is mirrored in the complementarity of the meta-system proto-gestalt in the
relation of origin to arena or in the proto-flow as source and Oceanus, i.e.
encompassing stream. In other words, the Otherness that appears to us arising out of
the meta-system is inherently split into a chiasmic reversal where either the “anti” or
the “non” is emphasized. If the “anti” is emphasized we see the arena within which
the system confronts its opposites. If the “non” is emphasized we see the variety that
is being produced and our attention is focused on the origin of that variety. The meta-
system is the nexus out of which Otherness arises and is sustained from the
viewpoint of the system. That Otherness drives it’s need for requisite variety. But,
variety is not random difference. Variety arises together from the proto-flow source
or proto-gestalt origin of the meta-system and plays itself out within the arena of
freedoms set up by the meta-system or within the all encompassing flows of the
Oceanus. In this way the Meta-system plays the role of the nonduality of the Good
which is the source of endless complementary variety. This play unfolds the
necessary fourfold dimensions of Otherness directly expressing the needs of the
system for opposite variety to its own internal coherence of differences. The
78. This showing and hiding has a logic of is own embodied in August Stern [1988] Matrix Logic Amsterdam; New York: North-
Holland; New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier.
79. Greimas, A.J. [1987] uses the square of logical contraries and contradictories as a basic pattern to analyze narrative in On mean-
ing: selected writings in semiotic theory Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42
complementarity of system (gestalt or flow) and meta-system (proto-gestalt or proto-

flow) conditions and grounds all other complementarities between systems and their
Others that take place within the meta-system and causes the complementarity of the
meta-system to manifest.
Once we have understood the distinction between the System and Meta-
system as the difference between a whole greater than the sum of its parts (a surplus)
and a complementary assemblage less than the sum of its parts (a lack), then it is
possible to consider the special systems that appear as a hinge80 between these two
ways of looking at things. Unless we recognize the complementarity of the system
and the meta-system and the complementarity within the meta-system between
origin and arena, or source and encompassing flow, then it is impossible to ‘see’ the
special systems that arise between them. This is because we are used to seeing
everything as systems and we reserve the meta-system as subsidiary concept rather
than as a way of approaching things that is co-equal with the approach to things as
systems. When we see surpluses (of projected gestalt systems) everywhere and
suppress the complementarity of things it is difficult to realize that anomalous
special systems exist that exactly balance these two complementary perspectives.
However, there does exist when we look at things in the right light a set of special
systems that exactly balance the concerns of the system and the meta-system and in
the process produces some unique and peculiar emergent properties that seem
anomalous from the perspective of either systems or meta-systems. These special
systems, as partial systems or superabundant meta-systems, are exactly equal to the
sum of their parts with no excess or deficiency. There are exactly three such special
systems that can be called by the names dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special
systems. Each one has its own emergent properties different from the properties of
Systems gestalts or Meta-system proto-gestalts. We follow David Bohm81 in
ascribing implicate order to meta-systems and we call them proto-gestalts to
distinguish them from normal gestalts that underlie systems. Proto-gestalts generate
the discontinuous changes that occur in gestalt fields. These produce temporal gestalt
formations in which a gestalt is associated with a duration which suddenly changes
into a completely different gestalt pattern. Proto-gestalts produce the pattern of
discontinuities that fragments gestalts in time. In this way proto-gestalts are similar
to process meta-models in Klir’s ASPS82 while gestalts are similar to meta-
structures. The difference is that process and structural meta-levels are both visible
modulations of data by generative functions, whereas proto-gestalts are invisible
operating behind the scenes to produce emergent events in which genuinely new
process and structural patterns are generated. Proto-gestalts contain the pattern of
emergent novelty implicit in a series of gestalt system formations.
80. See Jacques Derrida Of Grammatology, op. cit.
81. See David Bohm [1983] Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Ark Books, New York
82. Architecture for Systems Problem Solving, op. cit.
43
The dissipative special system has been best described by Prigogine83 as

dissipative structures and demonstrated to be a special phenomena by the
exploration of far from equilibrium thermodynamic processes84. These dissipative
phenomena which dissipate order that arises spontaneously are seen to be neg-
entropic local fluctuations that make possible the arising of life and other complex
ordered phenomena. The natural phenomena that relates to dissipative special
systems is the anomaly of soliton waves.85 The mathematical analogy for this type
of special systems is the imaginary complex algebra, called here complexnions86.
This algebra is equivalent to the reflection between two facing mirrors87. The simple
topological analogy of the dissipative special system is the mobius strip88.
The autopoietic special system has been best defined by Maturana89 and
Varela90 who use self-organization as definition for life. The best introduction to this
literature is John Mingers’ Self-producing Systems91. In general all macro-quantum
mechanical phenomena are autopoietic in nature92. An autopoietic system is seen to
be closed from an information perspective while remaining open to physical
perturbations and maintaining it’s own organization as a homeostatic variable. It is
composed of a network of nodes that produce their own structural components which
are then organized by the system to produce itself. The natural phenomena that
relates to autopoietic special systems is both the anomalies of superfluids93 of
Helium three and four as well as the anomaly of superconductivity.94 With reference
to solitons there is a higher level structure called the ‘breather’ that is composed of
a solition and a negative soliton interacting to form a stable stationary wave
formation. The mathematical analogy for these special systems is the imaginary
83. Prigogine, I. [1984] Order Out of Chaos. Bantam Books, New York. See also, [1980] From Being to Becoming. W.H. Freeman,
New York.
84. Goldstein, M. and Goldstein, I.F. [1993] The Refrigerator and the Universe: Understanding the Laws of Energy. Cambridge,
MA, Harvard U.P. See also Sklar, L. [1993] Physics and Chance. Cambridge U.P.
85. Lamb, G. L. [1980] Elements of soliton theory. Imprint New York: Wiley. See also Drazin, P.G. and Johnson, R.S. [1988] Soli-
tons: an introduction. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
86. Nahim, P.J. [1998] An Imaginary Tale: the story of the square root of negative one.Princeton: Princeton University Press. This
is an excellent introduction to the history of complex and imaginary numbers.
87. Onar Aam (onar@hsr.no) discovered this fact in his research into the underlying mathematical basis of the special systems the-
ory.
88. Fauvel, T., Flood, R.and Wilson, R. [1993] Mobius and His Band. Oxford University Press.
89. Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. [1992] The Tree of Knowledge. Shambala Books.
90. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. [1991] The Embodied Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
91. Mingers, J. [1995] Self-Producing Systems. Plenum Press, New York.
92. Smolin, L. [1997] The Life of the Cosmos. N.Y. Oxford U.P. This book talks about the relation between Self-Organization and
Physics of the Universe.
93. Khalatnikov, I.M. 1965] An introduction to the theory of superfluidity. New York, W.A. Benjamin.
94. Rose-Innes, A. C. and Rhoderick, E. H. [1969] Introduction to superconductivity. Oxford, New York, Pergamon Press. See also
Tinkham, M. [1975] Introduction to superconductivity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
44
quaternion hyper-complex algebra95. This algebra is equivalent to the reflection

between three facing mirrors that form a equilateral triangle.96 The topological
analogy of the autopoietic special system is the kleinian bottle.
The reflexive special system is posited as the social extension of the

autopoietic special system. The definition of this new emergent level is a
fundamental contribution to Autopoietic Theory which does not cover social
phenomena in spite of the fact that many researchers such as Luhmann97 have
attempted to use Autopoietic Theory to cover social phenomena. It is best defined by
John O’Malley in The Sociology of Meaning98 and by other reflexive theorists from
95. Quaternion hyper-complex algebra has the following rules: ij=k, jk=i, ki=j, ji=-k, kj=-i, ik=-j, i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk = -1.
Quaternion Multiplication Table
1 i j k
1 1 i j k
i i -1 +k -j
j j -k -1 +i
k k +j -i -1
See also du Val, P. [1964] Homographies, Quaternions and Rotations. Oxford University Press.
As a side note notice also that the singularity -1 = eπ*i. This is the most remarkable equation in mathematics according to the youth-
ful Feynman. Our interpretation of this equation is that the e is the natural logarithmic spiral which is dissipative ordering.
the π*i exponent is composed of a half of a hyper-cycle circle and an orthogonal component which can flip the half circle
90 degrees into the imaginary space. When we combine two eπ*i elements then we get an autopoietic system composed
of two dissipative spiral generators and a full hyper-cycle circle that can be rendered orthogonal by flipping it into imag-
inary space. This equation -1 = eπ*i represents the internal structure of the singularity in the real number line at -1 and is
an image of the autopoietic holon. Since 0 = eπ*i + 1 we can see the reflexive structure in the cancellation of the antinomies
of -1 and 1 which arise from the void and return to it. But this also implies that 0 = eπ*i + (eπ*i * eπ*i ) which means that
any systemic whole is composed of two symbiotic autopoietic elements multiplied but if you add another one then that
cancels. This underwrites their status as holonomic.This is like the equation 0 = -1 + (-1 * -1) which causes us to look
more carefully at the difference between -1 * 1 = -1; -1 * -1 = 1 and 1 * 1 = 1. We can interpret these to mean non-existence
times non-existence is existence and existence times existence is existence. We also know that non-existence times exist-
ence is always non-existence. So when two non-existences get together there can come from them an existence. It is this
fact that we use to produce forms out of the void.The number -1 is the singularity in the real number line where imaginary
orthogonality appears which is neither less than nothing, more than nothing nor nothing. We get a glimpse inside of that
singularity through the remarkable term eπ*i which is the image of an autopoietic holon.The square root of eπ*i is i, or j
or k. This makes i, j and k imaginaries of the quaternion subsidiary holon factors within this higher level holon. We get
the following image of the levels of the Special Systems Theory.
Systemic Gestalt = Any number produced by addition or multiplication of 1, 0, -1
Dissipative Special System = eπ*i = -1 composed of sqrt(eπ*i)2 = i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk [holon and sub-holons]
Autopoietic Special System = eπ*i * eπ*i = -1 * -1 = 1 [autonomous unity]
Reflexive Special System = eπ*i * eπ*i + eπ*i = (-1 * -1) + -1 = 1 + -1 = 0 [arising and passing away of pairs]
Meta-Systemic Proto-Gestalt = 0 [void as ground state of formlessness]
We note that in the sub-holon i = sqrt(eπ*i) the imaginary appears within the definition of itself producing a non-well-
founded set mediated by the two transcendental numbers e and π.How these two transcendentals can compensate each
other to produce a whole of -1 is hard to imagine. But it shows that there is infinite information within the dissipative
system which is composed of two sub-holons multiplied. We have used the Escher waterfall or Penrose triangle to illus-
trate how infinite information, in this case the randomness of the transcendental number which is yet fixed can yield a
self-originating informational flow which is apprehended as the gestalt of a dissipative system.
45
the Sociological tradition that looks at the philosophical roots of sociological theory
such as Barry Sandywell in his Logological Investigations. A good introduction to
this literature is Ashmore’s The Reflexive Thesis99 and Alan Blum’s Theorizing100.
The natural phenomena that relates to dissipative special systems is the anomaly of
the Einstein-Bose Condensate.101 The mathematical analogy for these special
systems and their physical example is the imaginary octonion hyper-complex
algebra102. This algebra is equivalent to the reflection between four facing mirrors
that form a inwardly mirroring tetrahedron. This is equivalent to what Onar Aam
calls a “Mirror House” on the analogy of the mirrorhouse in a circus. It is also
equivalent to what Martin Heidegger calls the fourfold of Being. We speculate that
there is a higher level soliton formation also associated with the reflexive level which
we have named the Super-Breather. We hypothesize that the soliton super-breather
is a combination of two soliton breathers that appear in a configuration which
produces an instantaton103 formation. The two breathers exchange solitons as
instantatons though a potential trough between the two positions in spacetime where
the breathers are located. Thus, the superbreather is both a soliton and an instantaton
at the same time. Also we speculate that there is a higher level analog to the kleinian
bottle called the hyper-kleinian bottle formed by two kleinian bottles intersecting at
their self-intersection circles to form a sphere of ambiguity when the two kleinian
bottles are rotated in four dimensional space. Both the Super-Breather and the hyper-
kleinian bottle should they exist would complete the series of anomalies that allow
us to describe facets of the reflexive special system. There is good evidence for the
existence of the hyper-kleinian bottle104. The Super-Breather is merely a hypothesis
at this time.
96. This insight due to Onar Aam.

97. Luhmann, N. [1982] The differentiation of society Translated by Stephen Holmes and Charles Larmore. New York: Columbia
University Press. See also Luhmann, N. [1990] Essays on self-reference New York: Columbia University Press.
98. O’Malley, J. [1979] The Sociology of Meaning. Human Context Books, London.
99. Ashmore, M. [1989] The Reflexive Thesis: Writing Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
See also Sandywell, B. [1996] The Beginnings of European Theorizing: Reflexivity in the Archaic Age: LogoLogical In-
vestigations. Routledge, London.
100. Blum, A. [1974] Theorizing. Heinemann, London.
101. Griffin, A.; Snoke, D.W.; Stringari, S. [1995] Bose-Einstein condensation.Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Pres. See also Griffin, A [1993] Excitations in a Bose-condensed liquid. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY,
USA: Cambridge University Press.
102. Octonion Multiplication Table from Donald Chesley
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7
e1 -1 +e3 -e2 +e5 -e4 +e7 -e6
e2 -e3 -1 +e1 -e6 +e7 +e4 -e5
e3 +e2 -e1 -1 +e7 +e6 -e5 -e4
e4 -e5 +e6 -e7 -1 +e1 -e2 +e3
e5 +e4 -e7 -e6 -e1 -1 +e3 +e2
e6 -e7 -e4 +e5 +e2 -e3 -1 +e1
e7 +e6 +e5 +e4 -e3 -e2 -e1 -1
See URL http://idt.net/~chesley/TWISTED.HTM where he also talks about a variation called Twisted Octonions.
46
Autopoietic theory has been variously applied to social groups by different

theorists105. The authors of this theory deny that it is a valid use of the theory and
distinguish between autonomous and autopoietic systems.106 They see social groups
as one form of autonomous system that is made up of autopoietic systems, but they
stress that social systems have different properties than merely living systems. This
difference can be defined by saying that reflexive social systems are heterodynamic
instead of homeostatic. This means that social systems are continuously changing
with radical quantal changes that transform their essence. In the process of accepting
these radical changes the social system is ecstatic, or as Heidegger says “ex-static,”
which means it is continually projecting itself outside of itself into the others of the
society of which it belongs. This many to many self projection of the social organism
that G.H. Mead called the “Generalized Other107” can be seen as having the nature
of a meta-hologram in which the perspectives of the social group are holographic as
well as the contents of the parts. And this meta-hologram, or four-dimensional
hologram, contains a myriad of sub-holograms that all interpenetrate each other.
George Leonard has called this meta-hologram the “holoid.108” In the meta-
hologram109 each member is the whole which is mirrored in all the other parts. All
the perspectives on these various wholes are contained within the meta-hologram in
such a way that all the perspectives contain parts of all the other perspectives. We
can use Aczel’s110 model of Hyper-sets which are Non-well-founded and violate
Russell’s dictum that sets do not contain themselves111. The meta-hologram is a
model of interpenetration in which the tremendous overdetermined synergy that
exists in the social arena is modeled. We can follow Arkady Plotnitsky in saying that
these perspectives and sub-holograms within the meta-hologram are
“heterogeneously interactive and interactively heterogeneous.” We can go further
and call the meta-holographic structure a projection of the world. Each projected
perspective within the world we would call a domain. Normally the domains are
embodied by a living linguistic sub-culture. The projected world encompasses all the
103. Freed, D.S. and Uhlenbeck, K.K.[1984] Instatatons and Four Manifolds. N.Y. Springer Verlag. See also Rajaraman. [1982]
Solitons and Instantatons. North Holland.
104. Steve Rosen [1994] first speculated of the existence of Hyper kleinian bottles in Science, Paradox and the Moebius Principle.
SUNY. He has produced an excellent series of articles which explore the connection between the mobius strip and the
kleinian bottle and their implications for the creation of a non-dual philosophy very similar to the authors.
105. For example, Luhmann, Niklas [1982] The Differentiation Of Society. Columbia University Press, New York. For an excellent
example see Adams, R.N.[1988] The Eighth Day. Austin, University of Texas Press.
106. Varela, F.J. [1979] Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North Holland.
107. Mead, G.H. [1962] Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL. Peirce mentions the possibility of super-organismic personality in “Man’s Glassy Essence.” [Monist 3, Oct 1892 1-22]
108. See Leonard, G. [1978] The Silent Pulse. E.P. Dutton, New York.
109. Onar Aam has called this mutual mirroring structure the magical mirrorhouse on the analogy of the fun houses that have mir-
rors in circuses.
110. Aczel, P. [1988] Non-Well-Founded Sets. Center for Language and Information, Number 14, Stanford University.
111. Whitehead, A.N. and Russell, B. [1925-1927] Principia Mathmatica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
47
linguistic subcultures within a single overarching synergetic totality. Within those

linguistic sub-cultures we can produce either complementary theories of phenomena
described by meta-systems or monolithic classical theories of phenomena that we
describe as formal-structural systems.
As a digression it is worth saying something about the Kosmic Monad /

Faceted Pluriverse. We notice that the ends of the ontological emergent hierarchy are
bounded by the Kosmos and Pluriverse at one end and the Monad and the Facets of
the Monad at the other end. We can construct a picture of the totality of all things by
considering the Kosmic Monad and the Pluriverse of Faceted Monads. The Kosmic
Monad is a standard symbol in Theosophy112 standing for the archetype of what
exists on the edge of form where it bleeds off into formlessness. There are many
representations of Kosmic Monads within the Western mystical literature113. The
basic concept is that each atom of the subtle universe has the same form as the whole
universe so that everything is produced from a single archetype of energy involution.
The normal form of the Kosmic Monad is some kind of helix structure that turns back
in on itself like the worm Omniborus eating its tail. The theosophical Kosmic Monad
is merely a picture of the paradoxicality of the Totality of what Is. It is very similar
to the paradoxicality of the autopoietic system as defined by the biologists Maturana
and Varela. Hofsteader dealt with many similar paradoxical formations in Godel,
Escher, Bach: Eternal Golden Braid114. We see images of this archetype in the
Chinese Dragons that hover between form and formlessness. The Faceted Pluriverse,
on the other hand, is the inverse of the Kosmic Monad archetype. The Faceted
Pluriverse is the meta-system to the Kosmic Monad system. In the Pluriverse there
are may possible worlds that are simultaneously present. These many possible
worlds interfere with each other to produce what we know as the real world. These
worlds are constantly arising and canceling and in fact act like a swarm of monads
from the theory of Self-Generating Systems.115 These monads fragment and it is that
fragmentation that produces the many worlds.116 In other words, instead of positing
many possible universes we can equally posit fragmenting monads in which the
worldlines of these fragmenting faceted monads diverge. What we notice is that the
distinction between the System and Meta-system is writ large in the relation between
the Kosmic Monad and its umbra of Many Possible Worlds that are produced by the
shattering of Fragmented Monads. The Kosmic Monad is the result of the
cancellation of the Possible Universes that hover around it. Similarly, we can see that
at the next level down there is a World Pattern that serves as the meta-system to the
112. Rogers, L.W. [1956] Elementary theosophy. Wheaton, Ill., Theosophical Press.
113. Yeats, F. [1956] A Vision. New York: Macmillan Co., 1961.
114. Hofstadter, Douglas R. [1979]Gödel, Escher, Bach : an eternal golden braid. New York : Basic Books.
115. Goertzel, B. [1994] Chaotic logic: language, thought, and reality from the perspective of complex systems science New York:
Plenum Press.
116. Deutsch, D. [1997] Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes- And Its Implications. Allen Lane.
48
Formal Domain. In other words, the distinction between system and meta-system
reverberates in these higher and lower levels of ontological emergence. In order to
see this all we must do is combine the concepts that are opposite each other at the
two ends of the spectrum. So we see why this distinction between System and Meta-
system is so crucial. The reason is that it underpins the hierarchy of ontological
emergent levels by which we comprehend phenomena. At the highest level we model
the highest archetype of the interface between form and formlessness. The Emergent
Meta-system formation is an explicit process model of the Kosmic Monad. But we
realize that our kosmos is merely one of many possible universes and that these
universes cancel out leaving our universe precisely the same way as cancellations of
monads occur within the Emergent Meta-system. So the spacetime within which the
Emergent Meta-system operates is produced by the same process as the Emergent
Meta-system itself. But that process is seen as the Pluriverse of Fragmented Faceted
Monads instead of as a swarm of Monads. Similarly, the Domain of Form which
Science takes to be its object must be subjected to the critical accounting of the
World Pattern. The World Pattern has been explored by Husserl in Krisis117 and by
Schutz118 in his Sociological explorations of the concept of lifeworld.
Phenomenology119 discovers the patterning of the world that acts as a meta-system
for all formal domains. Science is blind to its own roots in the lifeworld. Heidegger
attempted to lay out this world-patterning in Being and Time120 in terms of ‘being-
in-the-world’ or ‘dasein.’ What we see of interest is that Physics when it explores its
limits formulates the concept of the Pluriverse but it is only theosophy that
formulates the paradoxical Kosmic Monad that is the focus of the Faceted Pluriverse.
Phenomenology, Dialectics, Hermeneutics and Structuralism explore the World
Pattern beyond the realm that Science will allow itself to enter, rather it restricts itself
to the formal domain. Thus, Physics attempts to stick within it’s formal domain but
ends up escaping into the strange domain of the Pluriverse. On the other hand the
Humanities formulates the process of world patterning that goes beyond the formal
domain and encounters paradoxes that it formulates in terms of the Kosmic Monad
which are similar to the paradoxes formulated by the theosophists that go beyond
what even social scientists are willing to entertain. But this whole formation that
arises when we consider the fact that the ontological emergent hierarchy folds back
into itself is merely a ramification of the basic distinction between systems and meta-
systems taken on a grand scale. We can learn the most about this distinction if we
stick to the relation between systems theory and its meta-theory. But it is good to be
aware that this distinction has many ramifications within our tradition.
117. Husserl, E. [1965] The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology; an introduction to phenomenological
philosophy. New York, Harper & Row.
118. Schutz, A. [1973] Structures of the Lifeworld. Evanston [Ill.] Northwestern University Press, 1989
119. Moustakas, C. [1970] Phenomenological Research Methods. Nijhoff.
120. Heidegger, M. [1962] Being and Time London, SCM Press. Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson. See also
translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, c1996.
49
The theory of systems and meta-systems as well as the theory of the special
holonomic hinge between them is the basis of a theory of Emergent Worlds. The
Kosmic Monad and the Faceted Pluriverse are projections beyond our experience.
The World Pattern is the highest level of the ontological hierarchy that we
experience. So it behooves us to posit the theory of Emergent World Patterns as the
ultimate foundation, as groundless a ground, for all our endeavors within the various
disciplines. The World Pattern is our ultimate experiential meta-system and it
behooves us to attempt to understand it theoretically. World Patterns arise as
Emergent Events, such as the transformation from the Mythopoetic era to the
Metaphysical era we are encompassed by now. So our theory of World Patterning
must take account of Emergence as a primordial phenomena. So ends the digression
concerning the macro-organization of the world using the system/meta-system
distinction ramified out beyond the bounds of experience as a means of projecting
the world.
Figure 9: Nesting of ontological levels.
Pluriverse
Kosmos
Having
World
Domain
Meta-system
Reflexive Special System
Autopoietic Special System balance
Dissipative Special System
System
Form
of Being
Pattern (sign, value, structure, process)

Kinds
Monads
Facets
Figure 10: Ontological Shells
Faceted Pluriverse - Kosmic Monad

World Pattern - Formal Domain
Systemic Meta-system - Reflexive Dissipation
Autopoietic Balance
50
The important point about the special systems is that they are defined not just
by theoretical definitions, but more succinctly and rigorously by mathematical
analogies. Each threshold of complexity that defines a special system level is
associated with a particular algebra. These algebras form a natural series that define
the minimal emergent properties at each transition point between special systems.
The fact that we can find a mathematical basis for our theory of special systems is
quite unexpected, but if proven sound, it opens the possibility of the long sought after
mathematical basis for the social and psychological sciences. At the reflexive
threshold of complexity we find an intrinsic sociality that we can construe as the
relations between individuals or as the relations between cognitive agents in the
“society of the mind” ala Minsky121. The layers of progressive emergence begins
with normal systems, and then defines neg-entropic far from equilibrium natural
systems, and then specializes further to give autopoietic living/cognitive systems,
before finally further specializing to give us social/psychological reflexive systems.
There is a nice progression that naturally leads to the definition of the ‘socius’122 as
a sui generis phenomena which Durkheim expected Sociology to discover. This
series of emergent levels abruptly stops at this final social reflexive level before
giving way to the pure recursive meta-system of infinitely deep interpenetrated
complexity. This shows us the intrinsic connection of the social to previous emergent
phenomenal levels as well as giving us a glimpse of the preeminence of the social as
the final strata of phenomenal ontic emergence from which we gain a vista on the
panoply of the manifestations of the pluriverse. The ontic emergent layers end at the
social unless we hypothesize a further level Gaia. We can use this final level of
phenomenal emergence as the foundation made clear by our mathematical analogies
as the basis for a new Social Phenomenology. Social Phenomenology123 takes the
social as the bedrock of all phenomenal experience. In that we follow Durkehim who
posited that the philosophical categories were in fact socially constructed124. In this
we follow Merleau-Ponty and go on to build upon the work of postmodern
philosophers like Deleuze and Guattari who posit the socius not the individual as the
most basic unity upon which our world is built. So social phenomenology now has a
rigorous mathematically derived foundation that we can exploit to build a more
“scientific” sociology and psychology.
The definition the special systems by recourse to mathematical analogies leads

us to redefine general systems theory on the basis of order instead of the things being
121. Minsky, M. [1986] The Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster, New York.
122. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. [1977] Anti-Oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. translated from the French by Robert Hurley,
Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. New York: Viking Press.
123. Sadler, W.A. Jr. [1969] Existence & love; a new approach in existential phenomenology. New
York, Scribner.
124. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T [1966] The social construction of reality; a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City,
N.Y., Doubleday,
51
ordered. Normally we say a system is a set of components and relations between

these components. The relations between components form an N2 static structure.
But where the components interact then the result of the dynamics are different
qualitative regimes. Those qualitative regimes may be seen to reflect the
interpenetration of the interacting components. As we know from chemistry the
qualities of combined components may be very non-intuitive, so ultimately we have
to try each interactive relation between components in order to discover its specific
qualities which may be very surprising. Interactive interrelations are the external
manifestation of internal interpenetration of the components. The interpenetration
only occurs because the things that are interrelated dynamically are empty. So there
is a dialectic between something and nothing that gives rise to the layering and
multiplicity that underlies the emergent patterns we see in our world. We normally
do not mention that to resolve paradoxes that arise in dynamic interaction we will
have to appeal to ramified logical type theory, so that there are meta-levels of things
within the system and there are different types of things at each meta-level. Also it
is normally not mentioned that we need to leave room for the existence of nothing
(like zero) within our definition of the system (i.e. the place holder of something).
These different ways of defining the system based on its relations and the things
woven together by those relations leads us to a definition similar to that posited by
G. Spencer-Brown125. Spencer-Brown stops his elaboration of this formalism at the
point where time would be introduced into it -- that is at the point where the
formalism would have to become structural. The formalism as a whole defines a
system in the classic sense as the set of all formulas that can be derived from the two
axioms of form.
Figure 11: Laws of Form
()() = ()
(()) = “nothing”
=
=
Figure 12: Laws of Pattern (anti-rules to those of Laws of Form)

()() = “nothing”
125. See G. Spencer-Brown [1979] Laws of Form. Dutton, New York
52
(()) = ()
=
=
Figure 13: Aspects of Form
These formulas assume the primitives:
• Something
• Nothing
• Multiplicity
• Hierarchy
These in turn become the fundamental constituents of forms. When we look at

these constituents we see that hierarchy and multiplicity play off of each other either
in the realm of something or in the inverted realm of nothing. We can see that the
layering and multiplicity of Nothing is equivalent to the ramified higher logical types
of Russell as described by Copi126. Thus, there is produced a framework of
manifestation where meta-level layering and multiplicity within which something or
nothing appears is prior to the establishment of relations or operations for the
elements. It is through this framework that the basic constituents of form are laid out
in relation to each other before explicit relations are created between things.
At this point it is necessary to introduce the concepts of the Kinds of Being127.

We will do this using G. Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form128 and John Conway’s
Surreal Numbers129. If you follow Laws of Form closely you will notice that each
aspect of the formal Mark refers to a different kind of presentation, that is a different
kind of showing and hiding, and since Being, as Manifestation, is only showing and
hiding this means that we have introduced at least four different kinds of Being
instead of the normal unified kindless Being of traditional philosophy. It has been in
the last hundred years that the kindness of Being has been discovered and explicated
126. See Copi, I. [1971] The Theory Of Logical Types. Routledge and K. Paul, London.
127. The Kinds of Being or the Fragmentation of Being was introduced by the author in his dissertation The Structure of Theoretical
Systems in Relation to Emergence, London School of Economics, University of London, UK 1982. This phrase names the
four different kinds of Being discovered in modern continental ontology. There is a series of four meta-levels of Being
that together constitute the world within the Western worldview.
128. op. cit.
129. Conway, J.H. [1976] On Numbers and Games. L.M.S. Monographs, 6, Academic Press, New York. See also Kunth, D. [1974]
Surreal Numbers. Addison-Wesley, New York.
53
by modern Continental philosophy starting with Husserl130 and moving forward into
the other dimensions of Being through the work of Heidegger131, Sartre132,
Merleau-Ponty133, Derrida134, Deleuze135 and others136. In order to make the
explication of these kinds of showing and hiding brief we will use the Mark and say
that the following correspondences hold.
Figure 14: Laws of Form and Surreal Numbers
Process Being
Wild Being Pure
Presence
Surreal Being
Numbers
Hyper Being
The vertical stem of the mark indicates the point of the now within the process
that is indicated by the overhanging horizontal roof of the mark. The dotted line
indicates the jumps that Spencer-Brown adds to the formalism later in the book
which generates the proto-imaginary numbers.137 These jumps introduce non-
linearity into the formulas of the Laws of Form arithmetic and algebra. Varela and
Kaufmann further introduce the idea of process through oscillating waves of
instituted marks within the variables of the formalism.138 When this process oriented
interpretation is imposed then the Hyper Being loops are the points where the
nestings of the formulas involute. This deeper reading of the Laws of Form makes it
130. Husserl, E. [1970] Logical Investigations. Translated by J. N. Findlay. London, Routledge and K. Paul; New York, Human-
ities Press. Two Volumes. See also Husserl, E. [1960.] Cartesian meditations : an introduction to phenomenology. Trans-
lated by Dorion Cairns. The Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff.
131. Heidegger, M. Being and Time. op.cit
132. Sartre, J.-P. [1992] Being and nothingness: a phenomenological essay on ontology.Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York:
Washington Square Press. See also Sartre, J.-P. [1976, 1982-1990] The Critique of Dialectical Reason.Two vol-
umes.Translated by Alan Sheridan-Smith; edited by Jonathan Rée. Verso ed. London: Verso.
133. Merleau-Ponty, M. [1962] The Phenomenology of Perception.Translated from the French by Colin Smith. New York, Human-
ities Press. Merleau-Ponty, M [1963]The Structure of Behavior.Translated by Alden L. Fisher. Boston, Beacon Press
Merleau-Ponty, M. [1968]The Visible and the Invisible Edited by Claude Lefort. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evan-
ston [Ill.] Northwestern University Press.
134. Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. op.cit.
135. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. [1987] Thousand Plateaus. Translation and foreword by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press. See also Anti-Oedipus. op cit.
136. Henry, M. [1973] The Essence of Manifestation. Translated [from the French] by Girard Etzkorn. The Hague, Nijhoff.
137. Proto-imaginaries is my name for the imaginary like formations that appear when the Laws of Form is animated as is done
toward the end of the book by allowing jumps from one mark to another mark in the sequence of formula.
138. Kaufrman, L.H. and Varela, F.J. [1980] “Form Dynamics” in Journal Social Biological Structures. Volume 3, 171-206. See
also, Takuhei Shimogawa and Yasuhiko Takahara [1994]“Reconstruction of G. Spencer Brown’s Theme” in International
Journal of General Systems, Volume 23, pp 1-21. See also, Kauffman, L.H. [1995] “Arithmatic in the Form” in Cyber-
netics and Systems, Volume 26, 1-57.
54
more than just a formalism that achieves non-duality of operator and operand and
goes on to indicate different kinds of presentation. For instance, there is the
momentary presence of the vertical stem, there is the temporal duration of the
overhanging horizontal roof, and there is the discontinuous motion of the jumps.
Each of these aspects of the Mark represents a kind of temporal presencing. Each
kind of Being indicates a different form of persistence within manifestation which
has been revisited many times under various names in modern Continental
philosophy. But this scheme leaves out one of the canonical kinds of Being. We can
capture this last form of Being which is called Wild Being by imagining the Marks
of the Laws of Form as being filled with Surreal Numbers139 as discovered by John
Conway140 and popularized by Donald Knuth141. These numbers are formed by a
progressive bisection starting from zero. There are two symbols called up and down.
These are progressively permuted to form a tree structure the nodes of which are
mapped to the numbers. What is interesting about Surreal numbers is that it is
possible to derive most of the properties of other more familiar numbers from them.
They include all the infinite and infinitesimal numbers as well as the Reals,
Rationals, Integers and Naturals. If we see surreal numbers as the content of the laws
of form then we find that surreal numbers perfectly express the nature of Wild Being
within the context of the other kinds of Being represented by the Laws of Form. To
be more exact, just as the Laws of Form goes beyond the duality of operator and
operand, so the surreal numbers go beyond the duality of quality and quantity. The
relation between quality and quantity is contained in the formulas N2 and 2N. N2 is
the number of things in a system and all their relations. On the other hand 2N are the
number of interpenetrations of those N things which define the possible qualities of
the dynamical system operating within the meta-system. The surreal progressive
bisection can either map to numbers, or even more naturally, represent the 2N
interpenetrations of things in a system and, thus, it’s possible qualities. Both the
Laws of Form and Surreal Numbers add crucial characteristics to the four aspects
that underlie the Laws of Form (and its complement the laws of Pattern): namely
something, nothing, layering and multiplicity. Out of the multiplicity comes the
ability to have multiple things in a system that can be related or interpenetrate to form
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the system. On the other hand out of
layering comes the possibility of the progressive bisection tree, which gives us the
qualitative and quantitative contents of the formal system, that surrounds and imbues
things with their Quantifiers and Qualities. Operations are actions performed on the
things, or if the things are verbs, then they meld into the Operators and other things
become nouns. This allows us to have dynamic relations between things. Those
dynamic relations may be transformations. The arising of quality and quantity, and
139. Gondhor, H. [1986] An Introduction to the Theory of Surreal Numbers. Cambridge University Press.
140. Conway, J. On Numbers and Games op.cit
141. Knuth, D. Surreal Numbers. op cit.
55
the ability to transform things with respect to their qualities or quantities, gives us
the fundamental basis of the formal structural system like the ASPS of Klir. As the
special systems unfold from the General Formal Structural System, that we see in
Klir’s epistemological hierarchy,142 we will see the arising of special meta-operators
first introduced by Goertzel as part of his formulation of the ‘Magician’ Self-
generating Systems (SGS). Those special meta-operators are creation, annihilation,
mutual action and gestalt pattern formation143. These arise as the inverse dual to the
Formal Structural System as explained in a previous paper by the author in the IJGS
journal144.
Figure 15: ‘Magician’ Self-generating System Dynamics145
spontaneous creation and destruction provides potential for emergence

anti-’magician’ ‘magician’
3) cancellation of ‘magicians’
and anti-magicians propensities intentions
add together
F
I
RAW POTENTIAL L
T 4) actualities which survive
E flitering will exist next moment
R
anti-
propensity
5) actualities have a probability
(tendency to based on trends in appearance
cancel)
filter is mutual
conspiracy of
all the processes
2) generation of possibilities 6) actualization of processes
conspiracy
between processes
7) conspiracies between processes
make it possible for them to continue
1) interaction of existing processes to exist across time
t0 discontinuity
between moments
t1
The laws of form of G. Spencer-Brown has a flaw in that he identifies the
background upon which the mark is made with the void or emptiness. This is an error
142. Klir, G. ASPS. op cit.

143. Goertzel, B. [1997] From complexity to creativity : explorations in evolutionary, autopoietic, and cognitive dynamics. New
York: Plenum Press.
144. International Journal of General Systems (IJGS) vol24 (1-2) 1996 pp 43-94
56
when we compare this to the definition of the void or emptiness enunciated by

Nargarjuna the Buddhist Logician. Nargarjuna146 builds upon Indian Logic which
rejects the Principle of the Excluded Middle posited by Aristotle. Aristotle’s logic is
known in India as the Student’s Logic and is a subset of the more comprehensive
Indian logic that holds there are four statements that may be made about anything:
•X.
•Not-X.
•Both X and Not-X.
•Neither X nor Not-X.
Nagarjuna147 goes on to define emptiness as that which goes beyond all four
of these statements. It is explicitly embodied as the disjunction between the
statements as they are posited. So Emptiness, or the Void, from a Buddhist
perspective is the difference between the “Both...and ...” and the “Neither...nor...”
statements. Nagarjuna goes on to use this definition as the basis for denying any
statement of the four forms found in Indian logic that in turn denies the excluded
middle. It is quite clear when we read Aristotle’s Metaphysics that he is specifically
answering Indian Logic as he posits the Principle of Excluded Middle, because he
specifically denies the four statements of Indian Logic. However he references
Heraclitus and Anaxagorus instead of Foreigners as the ones who hold this
paradoxical and self-contradictory opinion. Aristotle finds this particular extreme
145. Explanation of Figure: Goertzel’s model begins with a set of self generating processes. These self-generating process nodes
interact until an appropriate spawning time. At that spawning time they all individually produce a plethora of virtual self-
generating process nodes which each one thinks should exist in the next specious present moment. These virtual self-gen-
erating process nodes are thrust into the realm of possibility. In that realm there is a cancellation process that is carried
out which allows self-generating process nodes with opposite qualities to annihilate each other. What is left over from this
cancellation process will be actualized in the next moment. But the cancellation process is governed by the collusions
between different self-generating process nodes which taken as a whole greater than the sum of the parts may produce
random input into the process in the form of extra positive or negative self-generating process nodes. These extra self-
generating process nodes are called magicians and anti-magicians because they make self-generating process nodes ap-
pear or disappear and thus change the final result. Whatever self-generating process nodes survive the cancellation pro-
cess including the existence of magicians and anti-magicians in the soup will exist as actualized at the next specious
present moment. Then these will interact until it is time to spawn again. The important thing about this model is there is
not actual connection between specious present moments. They are only connected through the generation and destruction
of possibilities in a dimension orthogonal to the present. But the possible and the actual are not really connected except
by propensities which is in yet another orthogonal dimension. It is the propensities of self-generating process nodes that
cause them to generate potentials. It is the propensities of self-generating process nodes that are the basis of their being
weeded out in the cancellation process. It is the propensities of the whole cloud of self-generating process nodes, actual
and potential, that cause the generation of the magicians and anti-magicians that attempt to skew the cancellation process.
It is the propensities of certain self-generating process nodes to cooperate that allows collusion to exist between them.
And finally it is the propensities of actual self-generating process nodes that determine their mutual interactions prior to
spawning. These propensities are like to perfuming that connects one moment to the next across the abyss of discontinuity
between moments. [Explanation from On The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds: The Foundations Of Reflexive
Autopoietic Systems Theory Part 3: Chaotic Social Process Architecture (manuscript) pages 493-494 Draft #2 961206]
57
logical and philosophical position to be distressing. However we adopt it and would

prefer August Stern’s Matrix Logic148 to the Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form as a
formalism because it is more fundamental and does not mistake the background for
the void. Stern has in our opinion produced a logic that is as radical a transformation
of logic as Einsteins transformation of Newtonian physics. Stern uses truth vectors
with two quantities instead of simple truth values. The truth vectors may take on
three values 1, 0, -1 and he uses the truth tables of normal logic as matrices to
manipulate the truth vectors. When we do an operation in matrix mathematics we
either get a scalar or another matrix depending on the configuration of bra and ket
vectors. When we get a scalar, then the logic has produced a normal truth value. This
is associated with the dissipative system. When we get another matrix instead of a
scaler then we have turned the interaction of truth vectors into an operator, so the
interaction becomes operation which is reflexive. The interacting bra and ket truth
vectors engaged in exchange are autopoietic. The single truth vector outside of
exchange represents a system or restricted economy. Thus we see in Matrix Logic a
representation of the special systems where individual truth vectors represent the
restricted systemic economy. When these vectors engage in exchange and are
converted to bra and ket notational rotations then we find an autopoietic system.
When this exchange reduces to scaler values we find a dissipative system component
and when the exchange is enhanced into a matrix operator then we see the production
of a reflexive component. The reflexive and dissipative components suggest the
expansion and collapse that occurs like blackholes and miracles in the Meta-system.
The void exists as the difference between the two values that make up the truth
vector. Any combination of the values from Indian logic may occur in the truth
vector. 00 equals the “Neither...nor...” statement. 11 equals the “Both...and...”
statement. 10 and 01 are true and false respectively. The negative one value is made
necessary by certain matrix operations. It represents “the hidden” and thus makes
Matrix Logic a logic of manifestation and therefore is more suited for
phenomenological analysis than normal excluded middle logic. It is a kind of deviant
logic149 that is similar to those that Priest calls Para-Complete and Para-Consistent.
By covering the statements of the Indian Logic, and the Buddhist Logic’s non-
statement that negates the Statements of Indian Logic, as well as the hidden, Matrix
Logic provides us with an apt tool for describing Meta-systems and the Special
Systems as an extension of the normal excluded logic that represents the systemic
restricted economy. With this logic as a reference we can see what is wrong with G.
Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form. He mistakes the background on which the mark has
146. Cheng, Hsueh-Li [1982] Nagarjuna’s Twelve Gate Treatise. Dordhecht, Holland, Riedel. Pub. Co.
147. Kalupahana, D.J. [1986] Nagarjuna. State University of New York Press.
148. Stern, A. [1992] Matrix logic and mind: a probe into a unified theory of mind and matter. Amsterdam. New York: North-
Holland/Elsevier; New York: Distributors for the U.S. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co. See also Matrix Logic op
cit.
149. Haack, S. [1974] Deviant Logic. Cambridge University Press.
58
been made as emptiness, and the Void as it is called in Taoism, exactly because he
accepts excluded middle. He does not see that the background is a plenum that makes
up the background of the gestalt on which the figure of the Mark is seen. It is only
when we add to the mark an anti-mark that cancels it that we can approach the Void
of Taoism or emptiness as Nagarjuna describes it. We approach it though
annihilation which is one of the meta-operators that dependently co-arise within the
Emergent Meta-system. Form is not opposite the background-as-a-void. Instead
Form is opposite No-Form which is its inverse. Form and No-Form cancel to give us
the Void or Emptiness. The background upon which the Mark is written is
something, not nothing, as Spencer-Brown believes, but a different kind of
something from the figure. That “something” is the substrate which carries pattern,
traces and propensities as we look at it ever more deeply going down through the
meta-levels of Being. This insight may be represented if we acknowledge not just
anti-marks but use the quaternions150 to allow for imaginary marks of three kinds (i,
j, k). These marks can be signified by the rotation of the symbol of the mark, or by
the writing of the mark in each of the four planes that constitute the four dimensions.
150. Altmann, S.L. [1986] Rotations, Quaternions and Double Cross. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
59
These four marks:

Figure 16: Quaternion Laws of Form and Anti-forms
real imaginary
-j j
-r r = =
imaginary imaginary
-i i = -k k =
ij=k, jk=i, ki=j, ji=-k, kj=-i, ik=-j,
i j j i
= k = k
j j i
k = i k =
i j i j
k = k =
i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk = -1.
i i j j i j
= = k k = k = -r
constitute a closed quaternionic system which algebraically represents

interpenetration of forms and emptiness. This is because each pair of imaginaries
produce the other imaginaries from the set. These relations are holonomic in that
each imaginary is both whole and part at the same time. This holonomic aspect is
intimately related to the conjunction of operator and operand that Spencer Brown
postulates, but that August Stern achieves more completely in the Matrix Logic. For
Stern operators may operate on truth values or each other. There is a special circular
set of operators that Stern describes that is Autopoietic, in which the matrix logic
operators are operating on themselves and producing themselves. We see this as a
much more robust model of the Autopoietic special system than the Laws of Form
which Varela adduces as the formal image of Autopoiesis.
When we add the Laws of Pattern anti-rules to those of the Laws of Form then we
get a much more expressive formal system that will allow forms to pop out of the
void and return to the void again. Laws of Form by itself is an incomplete system in
which we must either start with something or nothing and these cannot return to the
60
void without the assistance of the other set of rules. If we make our criteria that the
system must pop out of the void and return to the void then this can only occur when
we have both rules and anti-rules at our disposal. Beyond this it is necessary to
further understand that there is a stage beyond laws of Form and Laws of Pattern (i.e.
rule and anti-rule) which we might call the Laws of Interpenetration. In the normal
laws of form there is not intersection of boundaries. However, if we allow the
intersection of boundaries then we get Venn Diagrams. When Venn Diagrams are
allowed so that distinctions can intersect then we have a model of interpenetration.
These rules might look like this:
Figure 17:
Inversion
=
Engagement
=
Entanglement
=
Engagement is when multiplicity allows separate individual marks to criss-
cross boundaries. Entanglement is when layering allows separate layers to criss-
cross their boundaries. Inversion is when layers become multiples or vice versa. We
notice that if we apply both engagement and entanglement we get the equivalent of
inversion. This is similar to DifferAnce that is made up of Differing and Deferring
or Effacacity which is made up of Effectiveness and Efficiency. In other words we
find here the basis for the production of dual implicated phases. This is the sign of
the movement into the meta-system. The meta-system is always made up of
complementary duals. We can now use this further extension of Laws of Form/
Pattern into laws of Interpenetration to give us a precise model of the movement
from System to Meta-system. It is in the Meta-system that interpenetration occurs.
In it the system loses its distinctiveness as it sinks into the background. In the meta-
system origin and arena or source and encompassing stream arise as the context for
the system. Complementarity is the threshold for this advent of Interpenetration in
which all the parts of the system become mutually implicative as it sinks into the
meta-system. This also gives us the basis for the production of a precise model of the
61
Emergent Meta-system that is our sui generis representation of the meta-system.

Figure 18: Laws of Interpenetration Emergent Meta-system model
=
inversion
multiplicity = layering
MONAD mutual action
VIEWPOINT
engage
=
mutual support
=
=0
creation
=0 =
entangle
=
annihilation
SEED CANDIDATE
place interpenetration
0 dis-engage
0 =
0
=0 =
0 annihilation
=0 =
dis-entangle
=
This model of the Laws of Interpenetration which encompasses the Laws of
Form and Pattern allows us to be very precise about the relation between the system
and meta-system. Here we see the laws of form and pattern working together allow
series of marks to arise from the void. These marks become the monads of the
Emergent Meta-system model. Then the marks engage in mutual action though
inversion where the layers become the multiplicities and vice versa. These
exchanges give some insight into the relation of the layers to the multiplicity. Once
the trade-off between layering and multiplicity has been recognized so that they
themselves are seen as duals of each other, then via entanglement and engagement
we enter into interpenetration where we allow the boundaries of each to criss-cross.
This means we are then fully into the meta-system in which we move from N2 to 2N
and experience interpenetration. That state is like moving from Laws of Form (or
pattern) to allow the over lapping circles of Venn Diagrams. We exit that state of
exploding combinatorial relations via a disentanglement or a disengagement. Then
it is possible to reverse the creation operation and allow annihilation as the marks
collapse into each other until they re-enter the ground. What ever uncanceled marks
62
are left, or if not the marks then just the places become the basis for the next cycle
around the Emergent Meta-system cycle.
When we use the Matrix Logic to describe autopoietic formations we need to

remember that it is not just truth values that need to be described. Being has four
aspects: Truth, Reality, Identity and Presence. We can use so called ‘truth vectors’
to describe each of these aspects of Being. This application of Matrix Logic to the
various aspects of Being is similar to the distinction between the real marks and the
imaginary marks mentioned above. Each of the aspects of Being form elements of a
quaternion in which truth, reality and identity are the imaginary values and presence
is like the real value (truth+reality+identity+presence = i+j+k+r). So we can see that
each form has imaginary images and that the phenomenological presence of the form
also has imaginary images within Being itself. This leads to a very complex situation
that produces basically 4^4 or 256 combinations. When we combine Truth, Reality
and Identity with each other we get what I have called the Trigrams of Being which
define the spectrum between [true, real, identical] and [false, illusory, different]. The
256 combinations refines this set of eight basic juxtapositions of the aspects of Being
and adds to that the consideration of presencing or manifestation. When we begin to
consider this relation between Matrix Logic and the augmented Laws of Form then
it is possible to begin building up a formalism that defines the autopoietic system
beginning from the level of pattern, working up though form to the level of system
in a new way. In order to do this we must recognize, following Butchvarov,151 that
material identity is significantly different from formal identity. He posits a difference
between entities and what are called ‘objects’. Objects are the “pre-entities” that
though material identity become an identified entity. Once we have justified a kind
of structuralism beneath the level of Being, that is used to compose entities, then it
is just a short step to recognize that the four kinds of pattern (i.e. process, structure,
sign and value) appear out of the aspects of Being. Thus, the level of pattern is
reduced to pre-entities, and by this we mean entities that do not have Pure Presence
Being. We hypothesize that these pre-entities described by Butchvarov really have
Process Being and that there are also Pre2-entities with Hyper Being Derrida has
called Traces, and there are also Pre3-entities with Wild Being that are propensities
or tendencies. With respect to Identity the pre-entities at the level of Process Being
produce structure through reduction. With respect to Presence the pre-entities at the
level of Process Being produce process through concatenation. With respect to
Reality the pre-entities at the level of Process Being produce value though exclusion.
With respect to Truth the pre-entities at the level of Process Being produce signs
through reference. We posit that at the level of Hyper Being these different kinds of
patterning become indistinguishable. At the level of Hyper Being traces are seen as
juxtapositions of broken and fragmented patterns in the palimpsest. Differences
151. Butchvarov, P. [1979] Being Qua Being. Indiana University Press, Blomington IL.
63
between structures, between processes, between signs, between values are jumbled
together as figures broken and submerged partially in the gestalt background. At the
level of Wild Being this collage becomes chaotically mixed to form a DADAist
surreal combination of order and disorder. But the fact that they appear as different
kinds of pattern at the Process Being level give us the basis for modeling the different
kinds of contents of form. We can imagine that there are different Surreal number
progressive bisections relating to the different kinds of pattern and we can use
Grenander’s Elements of Pattern Theory152 as a basis for understanding how
different kinds of patterns are produced in space and time. However, the sign and
value patterns are fundamentally different from those of process and structure.
Baudrillard speaks of the relation of signs to value in his Critique of the Economy of
the Sign153. There he shows that sign and value are independent and function in two
orthogonal economies simultaneously that may be in conflict with each other. It is
interesting to note that it is precisely the conjunction of sign and value that Jung uses
to define the Psyche. In general the sign/value realm forms a hyperspace over the
autopoietic system where the hypercycles that control the autopoietic nodes in
spacetime are manifest. This is where the psychic shadow of the system comes from.
It is built in from the beginning at the pattern level beneath the level of forms. When
we add to this picture of the four kinds of pattern, interrelated to each other like four
orthogonal surreal number bisections, the marks of the Laws of Form/Pattern and
then we allow those marks to be differentiated into real and quaternionic imaginary
marks then we have produced a four dimensional formalism that contains the four
kinds of pattern.
152. Grenander, Ulf.[1996] Elements of pattern theory. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. See also Grenander, Ulf.
[1993] General pattern theory : a mathematical study of regular structures. Oxford : Clarendon. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. See also Grenander, Ulf. [1978] Pattern analysis. Two Volumes. New York : Springer-Verlag. See also
Grenander, Ulf. [1976] Pattern synthesis. New York : Springer-Verlag. See also Grenander, Ulf. [1981] Regular struc-
tures. New York : Springer-Verlag.
153. Baudrillard, Jean. [1981] For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Translated with an introduction by Charles Levin.
St. Louis, MO. : Telos Press. See also Baudrillard, J. [1975} The Mirror of Production. St. Louis Telos Press.
64
Figure 19: Matrix Logic Operations

bra-ket gives logic ket-bra gives scalar
truth vector
truth vector
truth vector truth vector
x
1,0,-1
truth values x
*
ket
= * = scalar
logic operator ket
bra bra
ket-logic gives ket logic-bra gives bra
truth vector
truth vector
* = * =
ket logic operator ket logic operator
bra bra
ket-logic-bra etc. gives scalar
truth vector
truth vector
* * * * * = scalar
ket ket
logic operator logic operator
bra bra
logic-logic etc. gives logic
* * =
logic operator logic operator logic operator logic operator
Figure 20: Attachment of Matrix Logic Vectors to Marks
Process/Structure Sign/Value
phasespace phasespace
ASPECT Vectors
x x truth vector
x x reality vector
x x identity vector
x x presence vector
Process Being Mark

Wild Being Pure
Presence
Surreal Being
Numbers
Hyper Being
By the attachment of Aspect Vectors to Laws of Form/Pattern Marks which

contain Surreal Numbers we have a complete model of Being that includes both the
65
Kinds of Being and the Aspects of Being together. The surreal numbers can be
thought of as the wave-train of marked/unmarked states which Varela and Kaufmann
talk about. Surreal Numbers allow that wave train to be differentiated instead of
merely marked then unmarked in succession. Or we can consider the surreal numbers
as the content of the Marks which gives us Qualitative states. Or we can think of
them as numbers in the way Conway does which generate all the other numbers such
as natural, integer, rational, reals, infintesimals, infinities, etc, upto and including the
holes that prevent integration. Each mark is a distinction that we project, unless it is
non-nihilistic. Each mark can be characterized in terms of each of the aspects of
Being. The Aspect Vectors allows this characterization in a way that can be
manipulated by Matrix Logic. The characterization of distinctions and their contents
in terms of aspects occurs in the imaginary phasespace of signs and values above the
spacetime phasespace process and structure.
Figure 21:
* * =
=
=
=
* = * =
* * *
* = * =
=
* * =
The structure of possible Matrix Logic operations allows us to concantenate

them such that if we have two lines of marks, each mark can have its bra or ket aspect
values, where each line is either bra or ket. Between each of these aspect vectors a
logical operation can be given such that the entire line computes and each mark’s
66
vector can be calculated from the logic operation and the vector of the last mark.
Then crosswise there is either the upward evaluation that gives us scalars or the
downward operations that give us matrices. The resulting matrices and scalars each
multiply to give final values. The bra or ket vector signifies the orthogonality of the
marks in each line. The propagation of the aspect values allows us to work out the
summary aspect value of the whole line. Each logic operator between marks allow
us to specify the exact relation between the marks in terms of logical relations. The
production of matrices and scalars give us the meta-systemic relations between the
two orthogonal lines.
We now introduce the concept of the Formal Domain. The formal domain is
the conjunction of form and domain. In it we make a distinction as Spencer-Brown
does with his marks. But the distinction may be related to each of the four aspects of
Being which we now know is related to the four kinds of patterning of pre-entities.
From these four types of distinctions we get by combination the six properties of any
formal system. These are as follows:
•Clarity (well-formedness)
•Consistency
•Completeness
•Verification
•Validation
•Coherence
These properties are the relations between the different aspects of Being. From the
inter-relations of these properties we derive the four approaches to the Humanistic
Science which are Structuralism, Dialectics, Hermeneutics and Phenomenology.
These four are completed by Ontology which describes the unity that these collapse
back into at the top of the lattice of the formal domain. The autopoietic unity is
precisely what appears out of the combination of the four approaches to Humanistic
Science. The Formal Domain is a way of establishing the relation between the
patterned content and the autopoietic form that is both operator and operand, noun
and verb, at the same time which is the actual object of traditional Autopoietic
Theory.154
Once we understand how to produce the autopoietic formal unity out of the aspects
of Being as expressed as patterns of pre-entities, then it is a small step to realize that
these forms have a quaternionic set aspect. These quaternions of marks constitute the
nodes in the autopoietic network. The network exists in spacetime but is governed
by the hypercycles of sign and value in the hyperspace of reality and truth that floats
154. See Figure 38.
67
over the spacetime/timespace Matrix of identity and presence. It is the interplay

between the psychic hyperspace and the spacetime of embodiment that allows the
self-production to occur. The hyperspace allows for the necessary difference from
itself that is the prerequisite for the reestablishment of sameness over time and within
space. But the autopoietic nodes in spacetime and the hyperspace containing the
hypercycles is not enough. It is also necessary to introduce organization which may
be done by allowing Matrix Logic to manipulate each of the aspects of Being as they
impinge on the real marks, true marks, identical marks, or present marks and their
imaginary counterparts. Matrix Logic manipulates these aspects of Being as they
impinge on the marks and this gives us the level of organization posited by Maturana
and Varela. The autopoietic interaction of circular sets of operators is the means for
achieving autopoiesis at the system level. It is the higher unity of the interaction of
the operators and the different sorts of vectors. This interaction can be productive of
scalars that reduce to excluded middle logic or of other matrices. The other matrices
that are produced become new operators and it is when the operators only operate on
themselves and not the vectors that the autopoietic effect appears at the system level.
This set of formalisms together define the Autopoietic System with a theoretical
rigor that has not been described before. But it also leads us to call into question the
structure of Autopoietic Theory itself.155 This is because observers are introduced
into Autopoietic Theory in an ad hoc manner. For ourselves, we would like to use
Jumarie’s theory of relativistic information that appears in his Subjectivity,
Information, Systems156. This at least gives us a formalism on which to tack our
speculations. But the introduction of the observer in this way calls us to question the
very foundations of Autopoietic Theory and ultimately to replace it with Reflexive
Autopoietic Special Systems Theory which is formulated in a much more elegant
and refined manner.
This brings to the fore the fundamental criticism of Autopoietic Theory that I
have advanced. I now believe that Autopoietic Theory applies to forms not to
systems. The theory put forward by Varela and Maturana defines autopoietic formal
unities of the kind that G. Spencer-Brown defines, rather than systems. We can see
this because they begin by defining the difference between ‘structure’ and
‘organization’. By structure we believe they refer to the level of patterns in our
ontological hierarchy. This is where the material substrate that is ever changing lies.
Upon this substrate autopoietic systems confer formal organization. But organization
is an inherently social concept and is something more than merely unitary form that
is both the operator and the operand at the same time. Organization bespeaks the
155. See Palmer, K. [1998] Autopoietic Meta-theory (manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/at00v00.pdf)

156. Jumarie, G. [1986] Subjectivity,Information, Systems: an introduction to a theory of relativistic cybernetics. New York: Gor-
don and Breach Science Publishers. See also Jumarie, G.[1990] Relative information: theories and applications.Berlin;
New York: Springer-Verlag. See also Bennett, B.M. and Hoffman, D.D. [1989] Observer Mechanics. N.Y. Academic
Press.
68
upwelling of the nomos within the formalism as the various forms interact within the
milieu created by enforcement of axioms that underlie the formalism. These axioms
may be seen to interact mutually in a kind of hermeneutic circle as Rescher notes in
his work Cognitive Systemization. Organization together with structure serve to
delimit the autopoietic form. In order to talk about systems they introduce Observers
as a deus ex machina that converts the autopoietic form into an autopoietic system,
i.e. a figure seen on a background by an observer. It is this autopoietic system seen
by the outside observer that is closed. We see this as an image or intimation of the
special systems because the structural level can be seen as dissipative, while the
organizational level can be seen as reflexive which leaves us with the autopoietic
form as an image of the autopoietic level between these. However, I believe that this
correspondence is merely fortuitous as we cannot see any explicit comprehension of
the special systems in the works of Verela and Maturana. Instead we see that they
have created an inherently flawed theory because they cannot derive autopoietic
‘systems’ from autopoietic forms except through the miracle of the external
observers that merely appear out of nowhere. Thus we believe that Autopoietic
Theory as defined by Maturana and Varela is incoherent and weak in terms of its
theoretical structure.157 This is not to say that the theory does not contain a grain of
truth. But that truth is obscured by the sophistry that is needed to produce the logical
unfolding of the theory from the distinction between structure and organization.
Structure is at the level of pattern and Organization is at the level of System. But they
are used to define a special kind of form that is self-forming similar to that described
by G. Spencer-Brown. That is where the affinity between Verela’s view of
autopoiesis and Laws of Form arises. But when Maturana attempts to raise this
Autopoietic Form to the level of the system then we must introduce Observers that
have no natural springboard within the theory itself. They are just considered
ontologically given. Instead we propose that all we must do to save Autopoietic
Theory is base it on the distinction between system and meta-system. Once these are
understood in their differences and in terms of surplus and lack then it is only
necessary to introduce the idea that there are special balanced systems that neither
have surplus or lack. Either we speak of the dynamic balance of the dissipative and
reflexive special systems together or we speak of the perfect balance of the
autopoietic special system. Altogether this is more satisfying because the definition
of the special systems naturally arises out of the distinction between the system and
the meta-system once those two dual concepts are understood properly. Out of the
dual of system/meta-system comes another dual of reflexive/dissipative and then
between these naturally arises the self-dual of the autopoietic. Peirce was a precursor
to the theoretical formulation of this insight as autopoietic theory when he discussed
the strange nature of “protoplasm” in “Man’s Glassy Essence”. All this takes place
between the system and the meta-system which naturally entail each other as duals.
Form and Pattern, nor any of the other ontological levels, are necessary in order to
157. See Palmer, K. [1998] Autopoietic Meta-theory (manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/at00v00.pdf)
69
define special systems. Nothing is necessary beyond the distinction between system
and meta-system. However, once we have defined the systemic level it is instructive
to apply these structures to the other ontological levels as well. When we do that we
see that the Autopoietic Form is a devolution from the autopoietic system properly
defined. We see the place of form, pattern and the rest of the schemas of
understanding within the context created by the advent of the special systems. Our
theory is truly systemic and is not a disguised formal theory pretending to be a
systems theory like the Autopoietic Theory constructed by Maturana and Varela.
The fact that their theoretical construction is flawed should not however detract from
their insight which guided their theoretical construction. That insight which sees
self-production as the key to understanding organisms and other biological
phenomena is still valid. All we have done is recognize a logical flaw in their
theoretical formulation and replaced it with a better and more profound theoretical
structure. It is like the difference between Laws of Form and Matrix Logic. Laws of
Form contains some excellent insights but in a flawed theory. Matrix Logic provides
a deeper and more robust formalism for expressing the same insight and more.
70
Figure 22: Emergent Meta-System Cycle
dissipative autopoietic
special system special system
Mutual Action
MONAD VIEWPOINT
Complexnion lose commutative property Quaternion
hyper-kleinian bottle kleinian bottle
Gestalt Pattern Formation

conjunction
lose associative property

Creation
Mutual Support
SEED
EMS
Real CYCLE
system
hyper2-kleinian bottle
symmetry breaking
Methodological xor selection
Distinctions
“Lattice
of kinds FIELD CANDIDATE
Sedenion Annihilation Octonion
of order” meta-system lose division property reflexive
lemniscate speical system
mobius strip
plank quanta
SUB-FIELD
meta2-system
32nion and beyond
The four aspects underlying the laws of form/pattern when combined with the
four meta-operators give us the definition of the Emergent Meta-System (EMS)
which is the inverse dual of General Systems Theory. In Emergent Meta-Systems
there is a pure theory of meta-systems that is founded on discontinuity rather than the
underlying assumption of continuity that systems theory makes. Emergent Meta-
Systems assume radical spatial and temporal discontinuity and then attempts to
explain the apparent continuities of the swarming components of the meta-system.
This age old problematic that haunts Buddhist Metaphysics158 is finally solved by
the realization that the Emergent Meta-system is engaged in recursive reflexive
mirroring. Thus, the life-cycle of the EMS has four moments in which the reflection
travels around the inwardly mirrored tetrahedron of separate life-cycle stages. In the
EMS formation there is no movement but only recursive reflexion in which the
different life-cycle phases mirror each other in precisely the way that Heidegger
describes in the mutual mirroring of the positive fourfold of Heaven, Earth, Mortals
71
and Immortals in his later philosophy159. In the EMS structure the components of
each phase are qualitatively different so that the monads of the swarm reflect into
viewpoints in a constellation that reflects into the candidates in the slate that reflect
into the seeds in a pod that finally reflect back into monads in a swarm. This
recursive reflexion is done by the application of the meta-operators one by one to
particular reflexive modes of the EMS. This gives us a formal mode of meta-
systemic operation which implicitly allows us to derive the EMS from the unfolding
special systems because as each meta-operator arises properties are lost at each stage
of algebraic unfolding.
When we go from complexnion algebra to quaternion algebra we lose the

commutative property. That loss makes visible the asymmetries of mutual action.
When we go from the quaternion algebra to the octonion algebra we lose the property
of association. That loss makes visible the asymmetries of social relations which
gives us gestalt pattern formation. When we go from the octonion algebra to the
sedenion algebra160 we lose the division property which makes visible the
asymmetries of the distinctions between elements. Distinct elements may annihilate
each other without side-effects. Indistinct elements always emanate side-effects in
annihilation. The persistence forms in the universe are sustained as cascades of
annihilation side-effects. The opposite of annihilation is creation. Creation can be
seen in the difference between real and complexnion algebras. Both of these algebras
sustain the same properties. But the complexnion algebra makes it possible to solve
some equations which could not be solved otherwise. In complexnion algebra
conjunction arises which makes two different kinds of real numbers into a real-
imaginary pair. By conjunction an emergent property is created that would not be
seen otherwise. If we break the conjunction the imaginary aspect vanishes and we
158. This problem occurs because the radicalization of emptiness overwhelms all dharmas and so it is impossible to think what
would be left from moment to moment to turn into a Karmic seed for the next moment, yet the Buddha accepted the Hindu
doctrine of Karma despite holding the doctrine of Emptiness. The solution to this quandary that the Buddha pointed to by
his silence in the face of antinomies is Holonomics as we describe it in this paper. We hypothesize that the Buddha dis-
covered the Special Systems within consciousness so that the whole of the Buddha’s teaching is an explanation of Holo-
nomics as it applies to individual consciousness. In fact we would identify the Three Jewels with the Special Systems as
follows:
Dharmma = Dissipative Special System
Buddha = Autopoietic Special System
Sangha = Reflexive Special System
A close reading of the Pali Suttras shows many instances where Special Systems Theory is exemplified and described by
the Buddha or his followers. When the Buddha touched earth at the moment before his enlightenment we posit that he
touched the ground of ultra-efficacity that we describe here in terms of Special Systems.His teaching concerned how to
experience the states of consciousness associated with ultra-efficacity which he named Enlightenment the indubitability
of which he called his Lion’s Roar. Whether the Buddha was a prophet is unknown. More likely his teaching represents
the ultimate limit of purification of the self without prophecy.
159. Heidegger, M. [1971] “The Origin of the Work of Art” in Poetry Language and Thought. Translations by Albert Hofstadter.
[1st ed.] New York, Harper & Row.
160. For information about the sedenions see Section 7.
72
are left with two real numbers again. Creation and Annihilation meta-operators
connect the forms of numbers with the underlying field of the imaginary. Mutual
action and Gestalt Pattern Formation meta-operators allow the forms to interact
asymmetrically and to associate asymmetrically. Creation is a symmetry breaking in
relation to the field. Annihilation is a symmetry breaking with respect to the creation
of side-effects. Thus, all the meta-operators produce asymmetries of different kinds.
These various asymmetries synergize to produce the Emergent Meta-system
formation. That Formation is the dual inverse of General Systems Theory. General
Systems Theory is about the persistence of formal structural systems. It posits forms
and within them micro-forms that capture content characteristics and that organize
the content. Beyond the forms is the social gestalt of the system which contains the
forms. All these elements are positively present and deterministic. Emergent Meta-
systems describe the meta-systemic environment which is the field in which all these
determinate elements appear. To see this field we must focus not on the elements but
on the asymmetries that become visible in the field arising out of the lacuna betwixt
the elements. There we see the asymmetries that appear separate but always together.
With conjunction emergent properties appear that would not exist otherwise. These
are subtle properties organized around the singularity -1. That singularity opens out
into its own dimension which is like the inwardness of numbers. That inwardness,
called “imaginary” by the first discoverers of this sui generis numerical realm,
continues to unfold into more and more complex realms with further dimensional
structure. Next unfolds the quaternions, unity
then the octonions, then the sedenions, and
so on into infinite non-division algebras. The four algebras that exemplify division
are unique among all the infinite non-division algebras in their beauty, power and
elegance. We use the strongest of these as our normal algebra and so render
something unique and peculiar in its ability to inter-transform numbers into
something mundane161. The loss of properties which occurs as the series of
imaginary algebras unfold is the key to the realization of the properties of the special
systems. Each loss of a property renders something visible that would otherwise be
invisible. So with conjunction appears the imaginary as an inward emergent property
of numbers. Spencer-Brown shows that this property also can be defined in terms of
forms through the definition of his proto-imaginaries that appear when he introduces
jumps into the Laws of Form. Conjunction is the embodiment of the meta-operator
of creation within the Emergent Meta-system. When we lose the commutative
property suddenly actions can no longer easily be reversed and mutual action
becomes visible. When we lose the associative property, then suddenly associations
between elements become significant. Associations are arrangements of elements
apprehended together though gestalt pattern formation. Association is an
arrangement in an order by some external power or invisible hand producing an
overall or global patterning. Mutual action on the other hand is local and proceeds
from the various actions upon each other of the elements themselves. In this way, it
161. Moon, P. and Spencer, D.E. [1986] Theory of Holors. Cambridge University Press.
73
is clear how mutual action and gestalt pattern formation are duals of each other. As
Powers says, it is our actions that control our perceptions which is the normally
neglected inverse of our perceptions guiding our actions that is commonly pointed
out by behaviorists. When elements may no longer be divided from each other
cleanly, but instead overlap and produce relations between partial objects such as
those that Melaine Kline recognized, then annihilation of objects always produces
side-effects. Each side-effect is a new quantal creation so that creation & annihilation
come to entail each other beyond the realm of the division algebras. This mutual
entailment is called in Buddhism ‘inter-dependent co-arising’ which is another way
of describing emptiness. We take the infinite depths of the Pascal triangle that
defines the non-division algebras as a model of Indra’s net162 in which each thing is
a jewel that reflects all the other jewels which represent the things in creation. As
Buddhist metaphysical doctrine states concerning the nature of interpenetration, it is
the myriad differences between elements in existence that is the means of their being
interpenetrated, i.e. when we look at the inverse of the differences between existent
elements we see their subtle fusion. However, the normal example of the different
parts of the house, through their differences making possible the whole of the house
must be amended. The jeweled net of Indra is not a whole or a system, like a house,
but rather the ultimate meta-system. That is why it can function as a field or matrix
out of which everything else can arise. The differences are like the broken
symmetries of the uncut diamonds rather than the sharp perfect crystalline edges of
cut diamonds. The symmetry transformations at the non-division level always leave
an excess that is the means of making-one between any set of connected elements
greater than eight at some 2n threshold of complexity. This excess is the remainder
described by Jean-Jacques Lecercle163, or the accursed share described by Bataille,
which is the nexus of fusion beyond difference without the negation of difference.
We enter this realm when we apply all four asymmetries simultaneously as the meta-
operators of an Emergent Meta-system. Seeds give rise to monads through the
creation meta-operator and the imaginary realm opens up via conjunction of
elements around the singularity. Monads give rise to viewpoints through the mutual
action meta-operator and the interaction of the monads externally encompassed by
their inward vision of the other monads. All relations between monads are projected
internally within each monad and all we see externally are fuzzy summaries of those
relations. Viewpoints give rise to candidates through the gestalt pattern formation
meta-operator and the swarm projects the possibilities of the next life-cycle phase
separately. These possibilities as candidates annihilate each other to produce the
seeds that will give rise to the monads of the next life-cycle spiral. Candidates give
rise to seeds though annihilation meta-operator producing the next live-cycle phase
of the swarm jumping across the radical discontinuity between moments of the
162. Cook, F.H. [1977] Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jeweled Net of Indra. London, Penn. State U.P.
163. Lecercle, J.-J. [1990] The Violence of Language. London, Routledge.
74
existence of the swarm. This problem has existed in Buddhist Metaphysics nearly
from its inception: How can we have causation between moments when there is the
radical discontinuity of emptiness between the moments and inundating them. It is
the Emergent Meta-system formation that solves this riddle. The Emergent Meta-
system submerges into the field of the meta-system itself and then arises from it
again, and again. The meta-system is not a blank plenum but has embedded in it the
non-dual nomos of the infinitely deep non-division algebras. The division algebras
pop out of this infinitely deep infrastructure as a self-organizing process. They are
unique as a dynamic basis of the inter-transformations between independent
conjuncted number streams. The different emergent levels of conjunction (2, 4, 8
Streams) together form a higher level emergent construct that is the nexus for the
intersection of form and no-form around the interface of formlessness described as
the void. The intertwined time streams are contrast to the broken or partial streams
governed by the non-division algebras at the level of the sedenion or higher.
The EMS structure is a model of the kosmic-monad which is the archetype for
the transition from form to formlessness in many philosophical traditions. Plato calls
it the Spindle in the Timaeus and the Chinese call it dragons in their tradition. The
dynamical unfolding of the Kosmic-monad is seen as the pluriverse that is created
by the fragmentation of monadic observers. Thus there is an oscillation between
unity and multiplicity at the macro and micro levels that frames the meso level, the
special systems, and the formal structural system levels of the ontological emergent
hierarchy. This oscillation may be seen as the involution of the kosmic-monad into
Otherness and back out again and concretely this involution has the form of the
recursive reflection of the EMS structure because these are the complementary
aspects of the ultimate meta-systemic formation.
75
Figure 23: Jung’s Ego-Self complex
Thou
OTHER SELF
totality
meta-system
wise-old-man / cathonic female reflexive system
collective unconscious
animus / anima autopoietic system
personal unconscious
shadow dissipative system
conscious
It
ALTER EGO
unity
system
I ME
identity self-reference
Jung identifies the structure of the Self in Aion164 as a series of quaternary

mandalas which form a cycle which is an image of the Emergent Meta-system. This
representation was constructed out of historical cultural materials from the Western
tradition. These materials show that between the Catholic tradition and its Other, the
heresies, such as Gnosticism, Manichism, Catharism and Alchemy that the human
mind produced images of the totality of the self including both the conscious ego and
the archetypes of the unconscious including the highest archetype of the Self. Jung’s
premise is that all doctrines are one-sided. As the mind works on the doctrine it
produces all possible structural variations. The tradition responds to this by defining
ever more precisely what the doctrine is in relation to all the rejected heresies. This
field of development of positions and counter positions in a dialectical fashion
reveals the complete functioning of the human mind which seeks wholeness in the
equal conjunction of all the possible opposites. Jung took these materials from our
Western tradition and synthesized them into a set of interlocking and cyclical
quaternary mandalas which is very similar to the EMS cycle defined in this article.
In fact, it is clear that the archetypes are representations of the special systems, as
well. Jung clearly distinguishes the unity of the ego and the totality of the self. The
unitary ego is clearly an image of the restricted economy of the system and the
totality of the self is an image of the global economy of the Meta-system. The
problem is that Jung assumes that the totality of the self seeks to exemplify
wholeness. Wholeness is defined as the conjunction of opposites in a dialectical
manner rather than unity. However the conjunction of opposites in alchemical
164. Jung, C.G. [1959] Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the Self. Princeton U.P. See also Deinger, E.F. [1996] The
Aion Lectures: Exploring the Self in C.G. Jung’s Aion. Toronto, Canada, Inner City Books.
76
marriage needs instead to be understood in terms of the kind of conjunction that

appears in hyper-complex algebras. And instead of wholeness of the Self we need to
think in terms of unbounded meta-systemic fields with global incoherences that
exemplify para-consistency and para-completeness. When we make this
transformation in our conception of the unconscious, then it is possible to see the
main archetypes that Jung identified as images of the special systems. The shadow
is an image of the dissipative special system. The animus/anima is an image of the
autopoietic special system. The wise old man/cathonic female is an image of the
reflexive special system. Each layer of archetype represents a further layer of
mirroring in the social field. The reason the archetypes are collective and objective
in Jung’s terms is that they represent the mirroring structure in every social field
which is inwardly mirrored in each individual immersed in a social field. Within
each man is the reflection of woman and within that reflection is another reflection
of man at the next deeper layer of mirroring. Similarly within woman is reflected
man and within that image is reflected woman. As man and woman stand opposite
each other, for instance in marriage, these mutual reflections appear as in two facing
mirrors. Here we see that the levels of the special systems are equivalent to the
various depths in mirroring between the couples in the social field. The couple in
their marriage produce a reflexive special system that is the field within which two
autopoietic systems produce a symbiotic economy. This economy of the household
is sharply differentiated from the restricted economy beyond the household.
Housework is unpaid for because it is priceless. This pricelessness of housework
works to the disadvantage of women who are dominated by men in dualistic
relations. However, that pricelessness is reflected in the ministrations to the children
of the couple which indeed cannot be done as well by any other care giver and
without those priceless ministrations the children suffer permanent ill effects. It is
interesting that the various levels of reflections are seen as different points in the life-
cycle such that the animus/anima reflects the mother/father of the child while the
next deeper reflection165 is seen as a wise old man or a cathonic female. We each
move through these eras in our lives and at different times we take the part of the
different levels of reflection for others within the social field. The fact that the
archetypes can be seen in this way, as special systems levels within the social
reflexive field, means that Jung’s psychology can be reinterpreted from the
perspective of special systems theory fruitfully. He gives us an image of the
Emergent Meta-system in the model of the Self in Aion. He gives us the lower level
archetypes that are part of that totality of the self. Ego, Shadow, Animus/Anima,
Mentor/Crone and Self forms a precise image of the levels of the special system
emergence moving from system to meta-system. This analogy suddenly makes the
Emergent Meta-system more interesting if it is indeed a formal model of the Self. It
makes the special systems more interesting if we can see their reflection in the depths
of the unconscious, because it means that this is a generalized phenomena that goes
165. Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. [1985] Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London, Kogan Page.
77
beyond the realm of the psyche alone. Special systems appear everywhere in nature
as rare peculiar unexplainable phenomena that follows a similar pattern in all its
manifestations. Once we have a general theory of Emergent Meta-systems we can
begin looking for these anomalies both in the realm of physus and logos. What this
analogy with the archetypes does for us is shows that these systems can be central to
the functioning of our own consciousness and its underlying unconscious
substrata.166
Figure 24: The Self in Jung’s Aion and the Emergent Meta-system
MONAD
Anthropos/
Rotundum MUTUAL
CREATION ACTION
Earth Higher Jethro

Water Higher Moses
Fire Positive Miriam
Air Wise Zipporah
Lapis Homo VIEWPOINT

SEED Philosopher’s
Stone
prime matter
Giron Lower Jethro
Pison Carnal Moses
Hiddekel Negative Miriam
Euphrates Ethiopian Woman (second wife)
GESTALT
ANNIHILATION PATTERN
FORMATION
Serpent
CANDIDATE
Jung has produced out of the heretical materials of the Western Tradition,
especially gnosticism and alchemy, a view of the Emergent Meta-system. His is a
structural analysis of what has been left out of the official view of reality in the
Western Tradition. By viewing the whole tradition along with its heresies he
constructs a model of the arising and destruction of things within our worldview
which corresponds to the model of the self as our individual totality which is shared
with others in our tradition. It is fascinating that Jung sees this process in a way that
is directly mappable to the Emergent Meta-system formation which has been
discovered from other sources more theoretically based in systems theory and
mathematics as well as physics. Thus we are seeing here an image of the EMS
166. Palmer, Kent [1998] Archetypal Gender Ontology (manuscript; see see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/ago00v00.pdf)
78
formation in the logos. To balance this we might look at a similar image that can be
seen in the view of physus developed by the Western science of physics. This image
revolves around our understanding of the fundamental constituents of nature seen
from the point of view not of forces but of its organization as matter/energy in
spacetime. What is not ordinarily pointed out that balancing the matter/energy is
information/entropy. Each of these elements may have both positive and negative
aspects. Thus we understand that matter is balanced by anti-matter. What is little
understood is how energy is balanced also by negative energy. Negative energy
occurs when the vacuum is depleted of its normal energy content. Recently it has
been learned that there is an interest like effect between negative and positive energy.
If there is a negative energy burst then there must be a greater positive energy burst
to compensate for that deficit. If there is a delay between the negative and positive
energy burst then the positive energy burst must be even greater. If there were not
these interest like constraints on negative energy perpetual motion machines would
be possible. We know that information is the ordering of data through relationships.
But it is little appreciated that negative information is when data is completely
randomized. Chaos for example is a mixture of order and disorder and is not totally
random. Randomness is not a ground state of information but rather chaos is that
ground state and randomness is like negative energy in the sense that it is a depletion
of the minimal ordering of chaos that exists at the groundstate of information. A
similar but related idea is entropy. Entropy is the thermodynamic effect of the
introduction of disorder over time into systems that occurs in spacetime. Negative
Entropy is when order is introduced instead of depleted. Prigogine’s work shows that
it is possible to have pockets of negative entropy in a far from equilibrium system as
long as it is balanced by a greater entropy production that compensates overall.
Figure 25: Emergent Meta-system in Physics
Emergent Meta-System
Negative Operations Positive
Anti-matter annihilation Matter
Negative Energy creation Energy
Negative Information mutual action Information
Negative Entropy gestalt pattern formation Entropy
These four concepts have an intimate interrelation that defines an EMS cycle
though their interaction. So we see by this how the EMS cycle manifests in modern
79
physics in their description of the physus that complements the patterns that Jung
found in the Logos. This complementarity of imaging within the fundamental
dualities of our worldview is because the EMS cycle is a model of existence which
is more basic than this dichotomy in the differentiation of our worldview. What is
also interesting is that when we see these concepts within the model of the EMS
cycle they form a dance between the positive and negative manifestations by
crossing over from positive to negative and vice versa at the point where the static
results of the operators appear in the EMS cycle, i.e. at the point of manifestation of
the seed, monad, view and candidate. We can see these static produces of the meta-
operations of the cycle as the zero points where one switches from one dimension to
another within the four dimensional space of the information/entropy//energy/matter
interval that exists within the four dimensional realm of spacetime itself. In effect we
can see that there is a higher level interval with the following structure:
80
Figure 26: Differentiation of the Phusus
spacetime
extension
electromagnatism
gravity/antigravity
timespace
causality
matrix strong force
force
weak force
Physus
infomration/entropy
info/entropy//energy/matter
configuration
+info
monad mutual action view
-info
-energy +entropy
creation EMS gestalt formation
+energy -entropy
+matter
seed annihilation candidate
-matter
energy/matter
The Physus includes both thermodynamics and physics of bodies and forces.
Thermodynamics is normally neglected and because of that the relations between
info/entropy and matter/energy is not widely appreciated. When we place the
differentiated info/entropy//energy/matter interval within the context of the EMS we
notice that there is an interweaving between the various elements that exchanges
between positive values of one dimension into the negative values of the next and
vice versa so that the crossover axes in the four dimensional phase space become the
static results of the operators, i.e. seed, monad, candidate and view.
81
Figure 27: Weaving of physus EMS cycle
-info
monad mutual action view
+info
gestalt formation
+entropy
-entropy
+energy
creation
-energy
EMS
+matter
seed annihilation candidate
-matter
Let us now return to the consideration of the Laws of Form and their relation
to the Surreal numbers. It is through the combination of these two formalisms that
we can capture the intrinsic ordering of this root structure that we see mirrored in
both the physus and logos in a model composed in the non-dual nomos that is
between them. When we accept surreal numbers as the content for the Laws of Form
we suddenly have a complete structural picture of the interrelations of the different
kinds of Being. A similar picture can be apprehended by realizing that each of the
different kinds of Being relates to different kinds of Mathematics also:
Figure 28: Kinds of Mathematics
Pure Presence Being = Calculus
Process Being = Probabilities
Hyper Being = Fuzzy Numbers or Possibilities
Wild Being = Mathematical Chaos or Propensities
These four kinds of mathematics fit together as an example of how the

different kinds of Being form a synergy. We can see a similar but differently broken
symmetry in the fitting together of the Laws of Form and the Surreal Numbers. These
synergies allow us to envisage how the different kinds of Being interoperate. Each
synergy can be thought of as a “Face” of the world. As we look into that “Face” we
see the mirroring between our Self and the World which both have the same
underlying Nomos based on the differentiation of the Special Systems. Another
example of such a synergy is the coming into Being and mutual annihilation of
virtual particles in empty spacetime. The differentiation of this model from physics
has exactly the number and kinds of elements necessary to represent a synergy of the
82
Four kinds of Being. No more and no less. Each synergy teaches us something about
the integrity of our worlding of the world. We can think of these synergies as the
faces of the world where the different modalities of Being draw together and present
a coherent configuration that gives us some insight into the inner structure of the
worlding of the world. This coherence appears in some cultural artifacts or when an
emergent event occurs of the utterly unheard-of appearing for the first time. I have
explained these various synergies in several of my working papers167. When we
place the surreal numbers in the laws of form we get a complete picture of the
synergetic integration of our worldview and there are other similar formations in
different domains.
However, I would like to mention a very important consequence of this

formulation of the “surreal laws of form.” Surreal numbers contain infinitesimals
and infinities. We can see these as positive feedback loops that produce infinite
variety on either side of the decimal point. Surreal numbers also have holes that
separate the infinities/infinitesimal from the other numbers within the surreal meta-
number system. If we think of the infinities and infinitesimal as very deep peaks and
valleys in a tree-like landscape then we can think of connecting them together
randomly to get a multiply connected landscape where the valleys connect to valleys
and peaks connect to peaks. Or we might even think of the peaks connecting to
valleys as the landscape twists around itself. Similarly we can think of the holes in
this landscape connecting to other holes to give us wormholes through the fabric of
the landscape. But what about the possible connection of holes to peaks or valleys.
This possibility actually defines the dissipative system168 within the multiply
connected and wormholed surrealistic landscape. In such a connection there would
be the sudden emergence of infinite information from a hole or ‘nowhere’. This is
what Stuart Kaufmann calls ‘spontaneous generation of order for free.”169 It is the
emergence from the void of infinite information just like that which occurs in a
strange attractor. Only here there is no cycling but only the outpouring of
information from a singularity which is the hallmark of the dissipative system that is
far from equilibrium but can indefinitely sustain that off-balance poise that appears
as negative-entropy. Once we have a model of the dissipative system it is only a
matter of conjuncting such systems together to form an autopoietic system and
conjuncting them into minimal systems of four dissipative systems to create a
reflexive system. So we now see how there arises out of the surreal numbers the
possibility of the special systems hierarchy from which the multiply connected fabric
of quality/quantity non-duality. That quality/quantity non-duality exists within
another non-duality that connects operator and operands in terms of the Laws of
167. Palmer, K.D. [1997] Social Construction of Emergent Worlds series of essays and Steps to the Threshold of the Social series
of essays in Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory. Unpublished.
168. Kaneko, Kunihiko [1986] Collapse of Tori and Genesis of Chaosin Dissipative Systems. Singapore, World Scientific Pub. Co.
169. At Home in the Universe and The Origins of Order. op.cit.
83
Form. The Laws of Form and Pattern (the dual of the Laws of Form) provides the
cup that holds the wine of Wild Being. That cup is made up of the three other kinds
of Being melded together.
I will try to explain this in the following way. Plato said in The Sophist170 that
there is a hierarchy of the initiated. The uninitiated are the ‘men of earth’ that only
believe what is in their hands. Those initiated into the lesser mysteries believe in the
Unseen but think that it is all flux, like Heraclitus.171 Those initiated into the greater
mysteries believe in the unseen, but believe it is all static, like Parmenides.172 This
hierarchy leaves out the hierophant who distinguishes the seen and unseen and also
distinguishes dynamic and static but who knows what we really want is ‘change and
changelessness at the same time,’ i.e. non-duality. Now those initiated into the
greater mysteries are those that recognize Being as Static like Plato, Aristotle,
Descartes, Kant and Husserl which is the meaning of Pure Presence kind of Being.
Those initiated into the lesser mysteries are those that recognize Being as a dynamic
process of manifestation, like Heidegger, or Sartre for whom Nothingness has
similar, yet opposite, characteristics in relation to Process Being. Heidegger
constructed out of the two lowest kinds of Being an Ontological Monism173 in which
the static and dynamic kinds of Being formed a reciprocal closed loop. Michel Henry
in The Essence of Manifestation174 noted this primary assumption of Heidegger’s
that there was an ontological monism composed of the two different kinds of Being
he recognized. Henry suggested the alternative of Ontological Dualism and posited
that there was an Essence of Manifestation that was purely immanent and was never
seen. This is like the psychological Unconscious, yet deeper, similar to what Meister
Eckhart called the desert of the Godhead which is inaccessible within, not
consciousness, but the more general realm of manifestation. Henry said that there
was some part of Being that never appeared in manifestation and called that the
Essence of Manifestation. Later Heidegger recognized this realm as Being (crossed
out) in his essay on Junger called ‘On the Line.175’ Derrida picked up on this kind of
Being and called it DifferAnce in Of Grammatology176. Merleau-Ponty called it the
Hyper-dialectic in The Visible and the Invisible177 of Process Being and Sartre’s
170. Plato The Sophist

171. Heraclitus in Fitt, M. [1962] Ancilla to the pre-Socratic philosophers: a complete translation of the fragments in Diels
Fragmente der Vorspkratiker. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
172. Parmenides in Fitt [1962] op cit.
173. Ontological Monism is defined by M. Henry as the closure of the two lowest levels of the hierarchy of the meta-levels of Being
by Heidegger who in Being and Time thought that these two kinds of Being were the only ones that existed. Later he
discovered the third meta-level of Being which he called Being (crossed out).
174. Henry, M. The Essence of Manifestation.op cit
175. Heidegger, M. “On the Line”
176. Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. op.cit.
177. Merleau-Ponty, M. The Visible and the Invisible. op.cit.
84
Nothingness178. Levinas called it the realm Beyond Being179 where ethics and
metaphysics merge in the bearing of the ministrations of the Other. There have been
many formulations of Hyper Being in Continental philosophy and it’s discovery by
Heidegger and Henry has left a profound impression on modern metaphysics. This
is an originary realm beyond the static and dynamic where, as Derrida says, there
occurs a differing and deferring. This origin is where the Hierophant’s perception of
Manifestation flows from. But there is a matter beyond this origin such as that which
appears in Surreal Numbers between quality and quantity and in the Laws of Form
and Pattern between operators and operands. This is the matter of Wild Being. In
Hyper Being the discontinuities within the continuums of manifestation are
discovered to be the source of the continuums. But in Wild Being we go beyond this
to realize that there is no difference between the continuity and discontinuity or
between order and disorder. This is the realm where Chaos in the mathematical sense
appears that is an odd mixture of order and disorder or continuity and discontinuity.
In this realm one realizes that there is ultimately no difference between the Essence
of Manifestation that never appears and what does appear. They are duals of each
other so appearance continually points to that which never appears. Appearance
taken as a whole is a complementary and distorted picture of what never appears and
what does appear is always fragmented in a way that indicates that which never
appears. At the level of the writer of the Sophist dialogue in which the heirophant is
played by the wise sophist, i.e. at the level of Plato himself, the dialogue writer, there
is the blending of the heirophant’s knowledge of the unconscious with that of the
initiated and the uninitiated. Plato demonstrates all the levels of Being to us and his
comprehension of them in the action of his writing that performs what he thinks
which is the synergy of manifestation. These synergies are the source forms. Plato
saw the source forms as strange attractors within which manifestation unfolds around
the synergies, such as we have been describing in which the four different kinds of
Being, and participate together to form a nexus within manifestation of the different
kinds of presentation.
In Wild Being there is a synoptic vision of the whole of manifestation in all its
different kinds as they fold through one another endlessly. One picture of that from
physics is the creation and destruction of virtual particles. Such particles can act on
other particles and can be seen together as a kind of dualistic gestalt and so in that
we have a picture of the meta-system on the par with that created by Goertzel180 in
his model of the Self-Generating ‘Magician’ System which is the inverted dual of the
general system theory such as that built by Klir. All systems exist within meta-
systemic milieus. Thus, the conserved particles are the system that exists within the
178. Sartre, J.-P. Being and Nothingness. op.cit.

179. Levinas, E. [1981] Otherwise than being: or, Beyond essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff;
Hingham, MA: Distributors for the U.S. and Canada, Kluwer Boston.
180. Goretzel, B. Chaotic Logic op.cit.
85
milieu of the virtual particles that supply their field like properties. Similarly we can
talk loosely about the different kinds of mathematics as avatars for the different kinds
of Being. Calculus gives us determinate continuous functions and the duality
between the Integral and Differential. Probabilities on the other hand depend on
actualities and have inherent error with mean and standard deviation as well as
higher meta-level deviancies. Probabilities are needed to describe actually observed
phenomena, whereas calculus describes determinate idealizations. But eventually we
are led to formulate the Fuzzy numbers which embody possibilities instead of
probabilities. These do not sum to one as probabilities must to mimic actualization
of possibilities in concrete existing phenomena. It is these possibilities that give us
an analogy for Hyper Being because there are absolute differences between
possibilities. These absolute differences are the discontinuities lording over the
continuities rather than the reverse that occurs in calculus. Probability is a half way
house between continuity and discontinuity that emphasizes the individual existent
thing regardless of continuity or discontinuity. The individual instants can be seen as
part of a normal curve of frequencies, but there is always the discontinuities between
individual cases. When Wild Being arises the continuity and discontinuity gets
chaotically mixed. Here we have chaotic propensities that link the possibilities to the
actualities with the addition of a tendency that throws the possibility toward a
particular actualization. Deleuze and Guattari call this a line of flight in Anti-
Oedipus181. We know that the combination of a possibility and a probability is called
a hyper-number according to Kauffman182. To get a propensity183 all we need to do
is multiply the two parts of the hyper-number. This gives us our propensity for the
actualization of a possibility with a certain probability. Wild Being is composed of a
field of propensities or tendencies. The propensity arises due to the fact that order is
embedded in disorder with the chaotic regime. The arising of order with disorder
confers direction toward which things tend once the order is initiated. Our propensity
is to flow within this implicit direction that underlies the implicate order that
emanates from the Essence of Manifestation. Coutu called this field the “tendency in
situation,” or TINSIT, and said that this was the primal unit of the social system184.
We agree with his analysis, but situate it in relation to the other forms of measure and
calculation. The field of propensities185 is precisely what the social fabric is
composed of, and it arises as the distortion in the reflexive action at the level of the
octonion algebras. This distortion arises due to the non-associative and non-
commutative nature of the octonion algebras. The distortion is what arises first --
181. op.cit.
182. The Origins of Order op. cit.
183. Watanabe, S. [1975] “Creative Learning and Propensity Automation” in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.
Volume SMC-5, Number 6, November, pages 603-609.
184. Coutu, W. [1949] Emergent human nature, a symbolic field interpretation. New York: A.A. Knopf.
185. Jullien, François [1995] The propensity of things: toward a history of efficacy in China.Translated by Janet Lloyd. New York:
Zone Books; Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by MIT Press.
86
then there appears that which is distorted! We see the traces of the things in the
distortion pattern and reconstruct the things just as we stare at the field of distorted
images and see the three dimensional images embedded in the randomized field. The
multiple traces of the distortion allow us to triangulate back to what left those traces.
Thus we intuit the Essence of Manifestation that never appears within the distortions
in the field of appearance. In that realization we recognize the non-duality of
continuity/discontinuity and order/disorder. That secondary non-duality points us
back to the primary non-duality of the complete meta-system that lies just beyond
the reach of the special systems. In the meta-system there is absolute
complementarity that we can only understand in terms of anti-epistemology and
beyond that anti-ontology. This complementarity points always to the underlying
non-duality of things thorough the continual arraying of complementarities of
complementarities. This is what Plotnitsky calls ‘heterogeneous interactivity and
interactive heterogeneity’186 and what Deleuze and Guattari call the rhizome.187
These complementary antinomies cannot be understood through normal rational
cognition, instead we must embrace a supra-rationality which is the dual of
paradoxicality. Supra-rationality is seen in the Zen Buddhist practice of giving
incomprehensible Koans to students. In supra-rationality the antinomies are held to
be simultaneously effective without any possible interaction. In paradoxicality the
antinomies mix and interact to produce absurdities. Supra-rationality maintains
clarity of the situation in the face of its incomprehensibility while paradoxicality
slips into chaos and confusion by mixing and fusion of contradictories.
Another way of defining a formal structural system is in terms of the

appearance of kinds of order. Klir hints at this possibility in the section of ASPS
where he talks about methodological distinctions.188 He gives us a lattice of the
different kinds of order that a variable can take on in its sequence of values. These
form a lattice that has its root in unordered distinction, which gives rise to partial
ordering, and then fans out to encompass both linear order without distance and
partial order with distance, before merging again at the point where full order that is
linear and with distance appears. We can see a system as coming into being by
accruing different degrees of order in its variables. We can recognize that some
variables may be prevented from achieving full ordering. But the system arises as it
attempts to attain full ordering in all its variables. We have shown that differential
ordering effects the design of real-time computer systems due to the fact that certain
background variables by which other system variables are measured cannot achieve
anything higher than partial ordering.189
186. Complementarity op.cit.

187. Thousand Plateaus op.cit.
188. op.cit.
189. Palmer, K. [1996] Wild Software Meta-systems (manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/wsms.htm)
87
Figure 29: Methodological Distinctions

a
NO ORDER
NO DISTANCE
pure binary distinction
agent
<b> process
NO DISTANCE
PARTIAL ORDER
c d
LINEAR ORDER PARTIAL ORDER
NO DISTANCE WITH DISTANCE
data
space < e
LINEAR ORDER
> event
time
WITH DISTANCE
Full Ordering
“REALS NUMBERS”
If we think of systems as sets of variables that emerge by progressive ordering,

and that some variables get stuck at various stages of ordering, then we only have to
continue this progression beyond the emergence of the illusory continuity of the real
numbers, i.e. Pure Presence, by allowing the conjunction of variables to form
complexnion, quaternion, and octonion algebras. This conjunction of variables that
otherwise might be viewed as real produces some very strange properties in the
conjuncted system, that both relativity theory and quantum mechanics take
advantage of to describe the strange properties of physical systems. In fact, we could
follow Prigogine and refer to the set of uncertainties that he associates with
thermodynamics, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics.190 But however useful
these hyper-complex algebras of supra-ordered variables may be to physics their
significance for systems theory has never been explored previously. When we view
the systems as the progressive ordering of their variables, then when we go past the
reals we naturally move into the conjunction of these variables into hyper complex
algebras. These algebras are the natural set of relations between these variables
which exhibit no surpluses nor lack. In fact, because they manifest neither surplus
nor lack, they indicate directly the suchness of existence beyond showing and hiding
190. IJGS op.cit.
88
relations of manifestation.
In a previous article I have mentioned that the ‘Magician’191 meta-systems (a

special case of Self-Generating Systems [SGS]) are the dual of general systems of
the type defined by Klir. This duality is difficult for us to think about because we are
not used to thinking about meta-systems. And to think the duality between systems
and meta-systems is even more difficult. But a simple way to explain this functor is
to say that systems assume continuity of the gestalt object. Goertzel has attempted to
define formalisms that do not assume continuity but instead make the counter
assumption of discontinuity. In a ‘Magician’ system you must show how continuity
is achieved instead of trying to explain discontinuity as we do in normal systems
theory. A ‘Magician’ meta-system is a swarm that persists in spite of fundamental
discontinuity. It does not form a system because there is no lasting gestalt. Instead
we have a model of the proto-gestalt’s implicate order manifesting over and over
again in the patterning of the swarm. This is more a mosaic, or collage, in which
mutually self-generating elements create and destroy each other rather than a single
gestalt. The meta-pattern is expressed in terms of mutual action and gestalt pattern
recognition and generation between the ‘Magicians’ of the SGS. Gestalts arise
within the context of this discontinuously changing manifestation. As such the
Gestalts are systems within the milieu of the Proto-Gestalt meta-system made up of
swarming self-generating elements. The ‘Magician’ meta-systems form the substrate
upon which systems are seen as figures. They are figures on the ground of the
continual arising of virtual system and anti-system pairs, that annihilate each other
in a continuous chaotic morass, that underlies the manifestation of all forms and
patterns. The opposite of form is chaos, but as we have learned recently chaos is not
the lack of all order, but instead the mixture of order and disorder. That chaotic
mixture, as it manifests to us, has a kind of Wild Being. Castoriadis talks about Being
specifically as Chaos and introduces the term Magma192 which is similar to the
Rhizome of Deleuze and Guattari and the Flesh of Merleau-Ponty in their intent of
indicating the nature of Wild Being. Guattari on his own talks about heterogenesis
in Chaosmosis193. It is shot through and through with discontinuities of every kind
which lends it a sort of Hyper Being. So that the frozen continuity of Forms and the
dynamic continuity of Systems signified by Pure Presence kind of Being (Form) and
Process kind of Being (System) that appear as gestalts, or flows, and finds, its
opposite between the manifestations of these two strange kinds of Being (Hyper and
Wild). ‘Magician’ systems arise out of the gap between these kinds of Being as the
dual of systems, that are supported by the more normal kinds of Persistence and Flux,
which were first defined by Parmenides and Heraclitus as we understand them from
191. Goertzel, B. Chaotic Logic op.cit.

192. Castoriadis, Cornelius. [1997] World in Fragments : writings on politics, society, psychoanalysis, and the imagination. Edited
and translated by David Ames Curtis. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press.
193. Guattari, F. [1995] Chaosmosis: an ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
89
the history of metaphysics, and upon which we implicitly build the ontologies that
underlie our systems theory. When we understand the mosaics and collages that are
the inverse of our systems, then we are able to understand that ‘Magician’
formalisms are not only possible but a necessary part of comprehension of systems
from the point of view of meta-systems.
Now consider Peirce’s categorization194 of predicates into Firsts, Seconds,

and Thirds. Firsts are the things that appear, nothing more nor less than their
appearances. Seconds are the relations between the Firsts. And Thirds are sets of
relations that approach the limit of continuity. To these we add another category
called Fourths which are synergistic overdeterminations of Firsts, Seconds, or
Thirds. Fourths we take from the work of Buckminster Fuller195 who studied
synergies in Geometry. Peirce denied the existence of Fourths, but he only dealt with
logic not geometry. Logic can be exhaustively described by the first three categories
but geometry needs the additional category of synergy to be understood. Points, lines
and planes are reused in higher dimensional forms196 in an overdetermined way to
form synergies that go beyond what can be described by these first three categories
and necessitate the introduction of the Fourth.
When we look at the lattice of the kinds of order197 we notice that the first kind
of order defines Firsts alone by a set of distinctions. But that the other kinds of order
describe the different kinds of relations that can appear between things. So the whole
lattice describes the kinds of Seconds that can distinguish and connect Firsts. So we
can see our system coming into existence first as orthogonal distinguished Firsts
(something) which then develop Secondary relations between themselves of the
different kinds of order that appear in the lattice of Methodological Distinctions. The
ability to order different things within the manifold of the system allow continuities
to be determined especially when they are compared with background variables such
as space, time, agent and function viewpoints198. Once we allow that there are
different instances of variables, then we acknowledge that there can be different
ramified meta-levels of relations between things in the system so that the
epistemological framework of Klir naturally evolves to solve the paradoxes of
194. Peirce, Charles S. 1839-1914 [1931-60]. Collected papers. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 8 volumes.
195. Fuller, B. [1975, 1979] Synergetics I & II. Synergetics: explorations in the geometry of thinking. R. Buckminster Fuller in
collaboration with E.J. Applewhite; preface and contribution by Arthur L. Loeb. 1st Macmillan paperbacks ed. New York:
Macmillan, 1982, c1975 Synergetics 2: explorations in the geometry of thinking. R. Buckminster Fuller; in collaboration
with E. J. Applewhite. New York: Macmillan, c1979.
196. Rucker, R. [1984] The fourth dimension: toward a geometry of higher reality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. See also Hinton,
C.H. [1976] The Fourth Dimension. N.Y. Arno Press. See also Hinton, C.H. [1886] Scientific Romances. Volumes I and
II. Pater Noster Square. Swan Sonnenschein and Co. Arno Press. 1922.
197. See Klir ASPS for “Methodological Distinctions” op.cit
198. Palmer, K.D. [1996] Wild Software Meta-systems. (manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/wsms.htm).
90
spacetime embedding. Also, abstract conceptual ramified sets of higher logical types
may appear in order to encapsulate the design of the system. These two kinds of
ramified meta-levels are associated with logos and physus dualism that we tend to
project on all things. The two ramified meta-level sets interact to define different
meta-levels of change and learning199. Within this dualistic framework continuities
exist to trace the dynamics of the instances of things that make up the gestalt of the
system as it arises from the meta-systemic background. So, Thirds arise through the
positing of instances of objects and continuities that connect them over distances in
spacetime, or partially order them, with respect to agency and function. Systems
exhibit synergy in which a single part or relation will function in multiply
overdetermined ways. Thus, every system, like an organism, exhibits some degree
of synergy through the continuities and discontinuities that exist within it. When
symmetries exist instead of synergies then we see meta-systemic complementarities
instead of systems. Synergies and exclusionary complementarities of symmetries co-
define each other so that the thing can be seen as either a whole greater than the sum
of its parts or a whole less than the sum of its parts.
So we can see any system as coming into existence by the progressive stages
of its ordering, rather than by the appearance of things within it and their relations
alone. Each system as a gestalt appears to strive to produce a continuity through
which its dynamics can be expressed. This apparent teleology is an artifact of our
projection of illusory continuities on existence. We assume that every variable
should be fully ordered by the real numbers but often real systems cannot rise to this
ideal level of the production of illusory continuity that would give perfect
intertransformability as defined by a real algebra. Some systems are incompletely
ordered, not just undecidable and indistinct, but under-determined, or only quasi-
ordered. Something and nothing are not just articulated by the ramified framework
of meta-levels, but also exist in relations of undecidability, indistinguishability,
indeterminateness as to kind, and under-determined or quasi-ordered. Each kind of
system may be partially submerged in the mire of inarticulateness to a different
extent. And this submergence might be intrinsic and essential, not just a product of
a lack of rigor or neglect. The lack of complete order in the agent and function views
on real-time system design is an example.200
But what happens when a system achieves perfect rigor of complete

continuity, determinateness, decideablity, and distinguishability, is it possible to
move beyond this ideal? This ideal is the definition of the dynamic system gestalt
that has been isolated and highlighted by the rigor of science, rendering it clear and
distinct201 -- cut off from its meta-systemic shadow. But this ideal is difficult to
199. Palmer, K. [1995] Advanced Process Architectures Tutorial presented at SEPG 95 in Boston. (presentation; see http://dia-
log.net:85/homepage/advanced.htm)
200. Palmer, K. [1996] Wild Software Meta-Systems. (Unpublished Manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/wsms.htm)
91
maintain. It is possible to go beyond the definition of the general formal-structural

system into the realm of the special systems. We do that by moving to the different
levels of archetypal algebras beyond the perfectly intertransformable algebra of the
real numbers. When we move beyond the algebra of the real number into the hyper-
complex algebras there are three steps beyond the fulcrum of perfect continuity and
complete order. These balance the three steps that led up to that threshold as order
congealed. Here instead we get a fragmentation between timestreams of continuity
represented by the ordered variables of the system. Different timestreams of
continuity are held in conjunction and through that we distinguish between different
kinds of numbers which we call imaginary. There are three algebras beyond the real
numbers associated with the complexnion, quaternion, and octonion numbers. They
are called the alternating division algebras produced by the Cayley-Dickson process.
These three thresholds of complexity beyond the threshold of the real numbers are
analogous to the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special systems. The special
systems deal with the intertransfromability between streams of continuity held
together, yet apart. They go beyond the normal case of general systems in which a
single form of continuity exists, and where all the numbers associated with variables
are real.
In both relativity theory and quantum mechanics complex numbers202 are

used for particular purposes. In relativity theory they are used to express the strange
relation of time to space. In quantum mechanics they are used to express the non-
locality of particle interactions in the S-matrix. But rarely do we encounter
Quaternions (3 imaginaries) and Octonions (7 imaginaries) in physics. Quaternions
were discovered by Hamilton in 1843203 and soon after Graves discovered
Octonions204. What was unexpected was that this series abruptly comes to an end
when we attempt to move to the next level called Sedenions205 which have fifteen
imaginaries. The division property is lost. These quasi-algebras206 are too weak to
give us any of the properties like those we consider normal in algebra. There are an
infinite number of these non-associative non-division weak quasi-algebras. Our
normal algebra is quite unique and exceptional in the richness of its mathematical
201. Descartes, R. [1966] A discourse of a method for the well guiding of reason and the discovery of truth in the
sciences, 1649. London, Dawsons of Pall Mall.
202. Cockcroft, W. H. [1972] Complex Numbers. Chapman and Hall.
203. “Quaternions were discovered by Gauss. It is in one of his copious notebooks. Hamilton discovered quaternions in 1843. We
know the precise date because the discovery has been over-analyzed by historians, it was in October of that year. Rodriges
figured them out independently of Hamilton. It may have been Grassman who realized that both approaches were identi-
cal.” from Doug Sweetser. See Crowe, M.J. [1967] A History of Vector Analysis. London, University of Notre Dame
Press. See also Grassmann, H. [1995] A New Branch of Mathematics (The Ausdehmungslehre of 1844, and other works.)
Chicago, Open Court.
204. McAulay, Alexander, [1898]. Octonions: a development of Clifford's bi-quaterions. Cambridge, [Eng.] University Press. See
also Dixon, Geoffrey M. [1994] Division algebras: octonions, quaternions, complex numbers, and the algebraic design
of physics Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
92
properties in contrast to the infinite number of non-associative algebras. The four

algebras associated with the real, complex, quaternion and octonion numbers stand
out as being very special within the field of all possible algebras. This is why the
systems that are defined by them are considered special. They are like a single peak
of perfection in a vast plain of mediocrity of all other possible algebras. Those
special systems are isomorphic in structure to these unique and rich algebras that
model illusory continuity mathematically. All the non-division non-associative
algebras of various kinds including those created by the Cayley-Dickson process
produce broken continuities because the division property fails in them. It is only in
algebras that uphold and underwrite the division property that can model continuities
completely. Within all the other algebras there is an underlying discontinuity with
local islands of continuity instead of global continuity based on the operations of
intertransformation between number streams.
The meta-systemic operator that corresponds to the system is the creation

operator that will be contrast with the annihilation operator that appears at the next
level of special system emergence. Where we can think of normal systems as coming
into existence incrementally we can see that there are a whole class of systems that
are quantal and that spring into existence full blown out of the background of the
meta-system. For these systems there is a creation operator that produces from the
meta-systemic field (as origin) the whole system. In terms of software applications
we can see this as the operation that starts an application as a command given to the
operating meta-system. In quantum mechanical field theory there is a similar
creation of particle and anti-particle pairs from out of the soup of virtual pairs that
are continuously created and destroyed. The quantal creation operation is based on
the continuity of the field that forms the background on which the system is created.
In this case the temporal discontinuity of the system is based on the spatial continuity
of the field that can create the system as a whole out of the fluctuations of the field
itself.
The algebras related to the real and complex numbers share the same
properties. The complexnion algebra arises because certain equations may be solved
with them that could not be solved otherwise, because they do not have real roots.
Together these algebras can be seen to create and destroy systems gestalts. Through
the series of stages of the introduction of ordering of variables we can see how
systems are created. When complex numbers207 arise it is necessary to have pairs of
variables held in conjunction (together yet apart). If conjunction fails then we cannot
205. Charles Muses [1966] “The First Nondistributive Algebra, with Relations to Optimization and Control Theory”, in Function-
al Analysis and Optimization, ed. by E. R. Caianiello, Academic Press. See also Charles Muses, “The Amazing 24th
Dimension”. Journal for the Study of Consciousness, Research Notes. See also Charles Muses [1960], “Hypernumbers
and Quantum Field Theory with a Summary of Physically Applicable Hypernumber Arithmetics and their Geometries”,
Applied Mathematics and Computation 6 (1960) 63-94. See also Lohmus, J., Paal, E. and Sorgsepp, L. [1994] Nonas-
sociative Algebras In Physics. Florida, Hadronic Press
93
distinguish between the imaginary and the real parts any longer. This is why vector
mathematics was invented by Hamilton. He realized that there was from one
perspective no difference between real and imaginary numbers outside the
conjunction. But inside the conjunction a symmetry breaking occurs that
differentiates the three imaginaries from the one real component. So annihilation
arises as the breaking of the conjunction in the a+bi formation of the complex
numbers. When the conjunction fails we fall back into just having two real numbers
in a vector formation and the symmetry breaking disappears. So the two algebras that
give us the real and complex numbers from a systems theoretic point of view give us
creation and annihilation meta-systemic operators.
Similarly, at each further stage of the arising of hyper-algebras that give us the
quaternion and octonion we can see from the systems theoretic viewpoint the arising
of two further meta-systemic operators. These are associated with the loss of
fundamental properties which are different in each case. In the quaternion we lose
the commutative property, while in the Octonion we loose the associative property.
When we move beyond the alternating division algebras to the Sedenion we also lose
the division property. Thus, with each further stage our algebras weaken until we no
longer consider them mathematically interesting. The inability to reverse operations
leads to the arising of a mutual action meta-systemic operator while the inability to
re-associate them at will leads to the arising of a gestalt pattern formation (mutual
support or interdependence) meta-systemic operator. Three of these operators were
first identified by Goertzel in a paper refining his ‘Magician’ Self-Generating
System (SGS) formulations208. The creation operator was introduced by the author
to round out the set and to introduce the spontaneous creation or radical emergence
206. The Division Algebras over the Real Numbers are:
R - dimension 2^0 = 1 - real numbers, with a^2 = 1; (here a is nonzero)

C - dimension 2^1 = 2 - complex numbers, with a^2 = -1;
Q - dimension 2^2 = 4 - quaternions;
O - dimension 2^3 = 8 - octonions.
R is Amalgamative, Commutative, Associative, and Distributive;

C is Commutative, Associative, and Distributive;
Q is Associative, and Distributive;
O is Distributive.
Instead of stopping at O, Muses notes that divisors of zero are related to NonDistributivity in that, if a, b, c,
ab, and ac are nonzero such that a(b + c) = 0 then a(b + c) =/= ab + ac Therefore Muses classifies
such higher dimensional algebras as NonDistributive Algebras. They include: (here a and b are nonzero and
noninfinite)
S - dimension 2^4 = 16 - sedenions S with ab = 0;

SC - dimension 2^5 = 32 - complexified S with a0 = b;
dimension 2^6 = 64 - M(8,R)
dimension 2^7 = 128 - M(8,R)+M(8,R) with a^2 = 0;
dimension 2^8 = 256 - M(16,R) with a^4 = 0
and a^2 =/= 0 and a^3 =/= 0.
Excerpt from Tony Smith’s WebPage at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/NDalg.html
Charles Muses’ work op.cit.
207. Yaglom, I.M. [1968] Complex Numbers in Geometry. London, Academic Press.
208. Goertzel, B. [1996] From Complexity to Creativity Computational Models of Evolutionary, Autopoietic and Cognitive Dy-
namics. New York: Plenum Press.
94
to the SGS theory. These two meta-systemic operators (mutual action and gestalt
pattern formation) are complementary pairs like the creation and annihilation
operators. Together these four operators define what might be called the Emergent
Meta-system. We can see them in the production of virtual particles that form the
background of conserved particles in physics. Virtual particles are created out of the
field and annihilate each other before the time limit set by Planck’s constant is
reached. Thus, space is made up of a soup of created and annihilated virtual particle
pairs, that form the background against which so called ‘real’ particles exist. But the
truth is that these virtual particles are needed to represent field interactions of the
‘real’ particles, so that the ‘real’ particles could not exist as they do without the
virtual particles that they are distinguished from by conservation laws. Thus, the
virtual particles, as a condition for the existence of the ‘real’ particles, are just as real
as they are. The two kinds of particles together constitute the reality of particles
embedded in a field in spacetime. Virtual particles themselves can mutually interact
in the brief time that they exist not only with themselves but also with ‘real’ particles.
And because they can be ‘seen’ in the effects they have on other particles there is a
peculiar gestalt pattern formation associated with the activity of virtual particles.
There is, of course, no direct observation of them as Planck’s constant defines the
limit of resolution. But we see the traces of virtual particles in the effects that occur
in bubble chambers on the observable ‘real’ particles. Thus, we see that because of
the observability of effects and the possible mutual action that allows those effects
to propagate, virtual particles exhibit all the meta-systemic operators characteristics.
And that is because the fabric of virtual particles underlying observable particles is
the meta-system that is the arena within the system of conserved and observable
particles operate within. The virtual particle background is another name for the
meta-system of the system of particle interactions that occur as embedded in
spacetime.
Emergent Meta-System (EMS) is a model of the pure meta-system that arises

at the sedenion level in the articulation of the partial meta-systems that correspond
to the division algebras. Emergent Meta-Systems may be defined as consisting of the
aspects that underlie Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form (i.e. something, nothing,
leveling and multiplicity) together with the four meta-systemic operators (creation,
annihilation, mutual action and gestalt pattern formation) that allow them to become
a theoretical construct that extends Goertzel’s ‘Magician’ SGS model by adding the
possibility of radical emergence or spontaneous creation (i.e. a true creation out of
nothing, i.e. ex nihilo, operator). Emergent Meta-Systems are in Peirce’s terms
‘firsts’ which have no external relations to each other to hold them into static
formations. Instead, they only have internal projected relations to each other. We
define these elements that have only internal relations with each other, yet form a
swarm outwardly, as monads, after Leibniz’s use of the term.209 However, these
monads are very different from those of Leibniz. Each monad has four facets defined
by the application of the meta-operators to itself. The monad successively moves
95
through the phases of seed in a pod, monad in a swarm, viewpoint in a constellation,

and candidate in a slate. Each of the facets other than that of the monad itself are
imaginaries and the facets form a quaternion with three imaginary facets and one real
facet. All the monads in a swarm resonate with each other moving through the EMS
cycle together. Each monad is in turn only a swarm of monads. In this way, monads
are not-well-founded in as much as they form Hyperlists (not just Hypersets) that
violate Russell’s dictum about a class containing itself. However, it may not contain
itself directly, but only in some mediated fashion. Thus, self mediation of the monads
in a swarm by other members of the swarm is what generates the hyper-complex
algebraic structures within the swarm. Thus, Emergent Meta-System components
swarm and form a rhizomatic collage or mosaic rather than an architectonic
structure. The projection onto each other of internal relations by members of the
swarm is accomplished by the mutual action and gestalt pattern formation operators.
Within the swarm there is a process of communal creation and destruction that
produces a life cycle which assumes basic discontinuity rather than continuity of the
swarm and its components in time or space. Time itself is split into timestreams
which are different for each member of the swarm. Interoperability between time
streams is achieved through the successively weakened algebras. But also with
individual timestreams there may be discontinuity as members of the Emergent
Meta-System appear and disappear in different life-cycle phases. This discontinuity
is radicalized when we enter the Sedenion and higher level non-associative non-
division algebras where the timestreams themselves become circular as the division
property fails. At most only eight timestreams may remain associative within the
swarm. This is the radical discontinuity at which point the swarm becomes an utterly
interpenetrating. Because of this the meta-system introduces the necessity of the
consideration of radical emergence or spontaneous creation as an important aspect
of the swarm.
Therefore, we see that from the viewpoint of Peirce in Emergent Meta-

Systems continuity becomes fragmented by the splitting of timestreams and
eventually the production of circular timestreams (called by some cyclical or
eternally returning time) when linearity fails at the Sedenion level. Relations
between components are internalized. To that extent the Emergent Meta-Systems
components are externally like Liebnizian monads, yet with no external relations to
each other at all. The only way to get a view of external relations within the swarm
is to make a fuzzy summary of internally projected relations. Thus, the swarm of
discrete monads exists in a halo of possible relations between the components. Here
we see that by taking the view of Leibniz concerning the existence of monads, it is
possible to see how they project internal relations instead of participating in external
relations with other monads. Thus, the deterministic projection of each monad of
209. Leibniz, X. [1902] Monadology in Discourse on metaphysics, correspondence with Arauld, and Monadology. Translated by
George R. Montgomery. Reprint ed. Chicago, Open Court Pub. Co., 1924.
96
relations internally appears externally as a fuzzy summary over all the projections.
In this way the monads themselves may remain probabilistic actualities within the
swarm, and be seen as discretely quantized in spacetime. But the mixture of the
internal continuity and the external discontinuity of probability allows the
approximation of rhizomatic Wild Being. The swarm that creates itself as a self-
generating system becomes the ideal model of the chaotic system. But the chaos of
creation and destruction of self-generating components exists against the picture of
the whole as a fuzzy summary of internally projected deterministic (continuous)
relations by each monad on to all the others.
So here we see how the EMS structure uses the four different kinds of
mathematics to produce a working model of the dynamic synergies of the meta-
system. Similarly we can see how the swarm itself can be pictured as a multi-
dimensional grid that contains computational monads210 which produce these
internal projections which are summarized by a fuzzy maximum or minimum. That
set of internally projected relations may be seen as the design of the systems
architecture211. Because we have not allowed external relations between monads but
demanded that they have an interior that arises in the laws of pattern, but is denied
by the laws of form, then we are able to treat the monadic creation and destruction
in terms of a genetic algorithm such as those developed by John Holland212. In this
way we can see how we might explore the design landscape as an internal
representation by successive generations of EMS monads within a swarm.
Requirements become fitness relations and monadic swarms evolve to fit those
constraints by a evolutionary search for optimal configurations of the internally
projected archetypal relations.
This radical suppression of external relations (Peircian Seconds) and

continuity (Peircian Thirds) leads to a peculiar form of synergy. That synergy
appears particularly in the formation of the quaternion which might be called a
mediated hyperlist. In other words the formation is a Non-well-founded Set
(Aczel213) with additional list like properties which allows repetition of individuals
of the same kind and some ordering. It is called mediated because no set can be
directly a member of itself but may be a member of a set that is included within itself.
This peculiar synergy in which elements may be reused by themselves but not
directly (only through the mediation of another) may be called following George
Leonard ‘holoidal.’214 It is the synergy of global interpenetration. The swarm
interpenetrates through the realization of multilevel conjunction under the auspices
210. Computational monads are built up of aspects of the software design minimal methods that are non-relational.
211. Kelly, D.A. [1976] “Architecture as Philosophical Paradigm” in Meta-philosophy, VII, July-Oct, pp 173-190.
212. Holland, J. [1995] The Hidden Order Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
213. Aczel, [1988] Non-Well-founded Sets Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
214. Leonard, G. [1978] The silent pulse: a search for the perfect rhythm that exists in each of us. New York: Dutton.
97
of the Division Algebras. This is similar to the multi-connected multi-wormholed

landscape that may appear in surreal numbers that was mentioned before. The
multiple mappings back on itself, and the multiple wormholes through itself, create
something analogous to the non-well-founded hyperlist that is reusing itself through
the other, in a mediated self-embedding self-recursion through the Other. This is the
process of creating the rhizomatic landscape that Merleau-Ponty called ‘Flesh’. In
Wild Being the self and other are chaotically mixed as are order/disorder, and
continuity/discontinuity. Within the disorder of chaos order spontaneously arises,
that “order for free” gives an implicit directionality to chaos which we call
propensities, tendencies, or dispositions,215 which are imperfections in the
underlying field at the reflexive level as it intersects with the pure recursive meta-
systems. So in the swarms Firsts (as radical emergences or computational monads)
and Fourths (as synergies or interpenetrations) predominate over Seconds
(internalized relations) and Thirds (broken continuities). This produces a model of
the meta-system or general economy which is complementary to the system as
defined in General Systems Theory. In the system, or the restricted economy,
external relations and illusory continuities are sustained over against synergies of
monads. Mutual action and gestalt pattern formation may appear in the Meta-system
because of the background of radical discontinuity. Continuities, not discontinuities,
must be proven in the meta-system. These are continuities of action and perception
that go against the grain of the discontinuities created by continual creation and
destruction of monadic components by the swarm. The social character of the swarm
is levied against the monadic character of the individual concrete components of the
swarm. Via mutual action and group perception production, the collusions are
created that allow persistence to exist within the evolution of the swarm. This
creation/annihilation represent dynamic forces of discontinuity while mutual action/
gestalt pattern formation represent the social cohesion and collusion that makes the
swarm a mosaic instead of merely a collage within the rhizomatic ‘Flesh’ of the
swarm dancing in the social fabric of Wild Being.
It is of interest that the Emergent Meta-System formation can be seen to have

a precise model in the age old game of Go in Japan, or Wu Chi from China. This fact
makes it clear that knowledge of the Emergent Meta-System formation is very
ancient. Basically we can see this if we understand that in playing the game of Go
we are oscillating between Gestalt Pattern Formation, as we look at the pattern of the
stones at any turn of play, and Mutual Action when we play a stone and thus
diacritically alter the relations between all the other stones. This oscillation occurs in
both players of the game of Go, continually getting new pattern formations and
continually moving in such a way that it effects the valuation of every stone on the
board. But it is only when we consider what goes on beyond the borders of the game
proper that we can see the Emergent Meta-System formation in its entirety. We see
215. In Buddhism it is dispositions due to ignorance that start the wheel of samsara or suffering.
98
when the players decide to stop playing there is an accounting that redistributes the
stones such that it is clearer who has the most empty spots. It is these empty spots
that are counted. This is a reverse gestalt from the one that was developed as one
played the game where the stones themselves were the focus of attention. Now the
holes that are left and surrounded by a particular player are the most important aspect
of the game and defines its true goal which is to control more holes than one’s
opponent. But we go further because we not only decide who won but also calculate
the handicap for the next game. This handicap is calculated by taking the winning
score and dividing by nine. This calculation gives the number of handicap stones the
losing player should have in the next game. These handicap stones are placed on the
board at designated spots prior to the beginning of play. The handicap stones are the
seeds of the power structure of the weaker player for the next game. They are placed
in non-optimal places so that they give support but do not immediately confer
advantage. They are placed at just the spots that the weaker player will be able to use
them when he attempts to connect his disparate groups of stones in the middle game.
So if we understand the handicap stones as seeds then it will be clear that these seeds
were truly produced out of nothing, i.e. the holes that the players were attempting to
conserve in the last game. So something was produced out of nothing. But beyond
that we can see that these holes are the candidates that cancel each other out to
produce the seeds for the next game or generation of the swarm of monads (stones).
So we see the stones as monads, the handicap stones as seeds and the holes that are
conserved as candidates. What we lack to have a full EMS formation is the
viewpoints. The viewpoints are seen in the game as the “eyes” that allow groups to
become invincible. These special holes make a group viable and when paired make
it so that the group cannot be taken by the opponent. This confers a kind of ultra-
efficiency to the group of stones by making it invincible. So candidates and
viewpoints are special kinds of holes in the Go game while monads and seeds are
special kinds of stones. The viable group is the root of a gestalt that will produce the
lasting and stable patterns within the patterning of the Go stones. Thus, eye holes in
groups are fundamentally related to the pattern formation within the game. Notice
that the two remaining operators also appear. The annihilation operator appears in
the end of the game when the conserved holes of one player cancel the conserved
holes of the other player. Also the creation operator appears when there are seed
handicap stones created out of nothing by the rule of nine. Both these operators
appear outside the play of the game proper and organize the movement between
games which represent the lifecycle generations of the swarming monads. In fact,
this analysis of Go may be taken down to its minutest details and we see that the way
the game is played by two players across multiple games is a precise model of the
Emergent Meta-System formation that we have been describing. That EMS
formation has been coded into this cultural artifact by the Ancient Chinese. It is a
representation of the archetype of the Dragon in their culture, that is a picture of the
Kosmic Monad, that is the archetype for the interface between form and
formlessness. Between every two Go games radical emergence is simulated as the
99
seed handicap stones are indeed generated directly out of nothing, as a side effect of
the cancellation by which one player wins and the other loses. Go shows us that
depending on the context ‘nothing’ can take on a very concrete negative form. The
precision of this ancient artifact shows us that the EMS formation was well known
by the ancient Chinese, and it was a knowledge that they wanted to survive into their
culture’s future, so they made a game out of it that would be played by millions of
people for the intellectual pleasure of it, even though they did not understand its
meaning. That meaning has finally surfaced again. Go is a cultural artifact that
captures the essence of the Chinese worldview similar to the way Chess is an artifact
that captures the essence of the Western Worldview.
In Chess there is the fact that the amount of information needed to differentiate
the pieces on one side is exactly the same amount is needed to define the board. Thus,
there is a transformation between 26 and 43, that is between two dimensional surface
organization of the board and a three dimensional solid organization of the pieces.
Both sides pieces in information terms, map to the whole playing board so there
naturally arises conflict. This kind of transformation first happens at the level where
there are 64 distinctions. Next it happens at threshold of 729 distinctions. But 64 is
the first threshold where such a transformation can be made without losing any
information. This transformation is indicative of a basic Indo-European cultural trait
that objects that are simultaneously operations are preferred. We can see this in
language where the words “shape shapes”, “form forms” can be either nouns or
verbs. This reaches its ultimate with the ontological formulation “Being IS”. G.
Spencer Brown has formalized this in his Laws of Form in which Marks are both
operators and operands. Chess represents this chiasm between the operator and the
operand in the fact that the places in Chess and the things that move in those places
have the same information content. The pieces are the forms that move and that same
information when transformed produces the place within which the movement takes
place, and is thus the form of the board within which the forms of the pieces move.
The Chiasm between noun and verb represents perfect action within the Indo-
European worldview. But notice that in the clockwork mechanism of the Chess game
empty space plays no active role as it does in the Go game. Each game is separate
and does not contribute seeds of handicap stones from the last game that are created
out of the annihilation of the valuable ‘nothing’ produced in the game by the gestalts
and the mutual effecting moves. So we can see that the Chess game is blind to the
role played by ‘nothing’ in the game. The whole focus is upon objects and their
synergistic movements as a team in clockwork complex moves within the empty
space of the board. Go on the other hand does not allow for the movement of the
stones. Instead the static board is the source of many gestalt formations as we see the
board differently as each stone is added to the tableau. This difference between the
stasis of Go and the dynamics of Chess is striking. But what is not seen on the surface
is that the dynamic in Go is across many games between the same players. If you
watch the patterns that occur at the end of play over a series of games one notices the
100
swirling patterns of the final groups after they have been rearranged for counting. So,
there is dynamism but it is more subtle and is across game generations rather than
within the game itself. The chiasm of noun and verb is an important underpinning of
the Indo-European worldview that will produce maximally efficacious synthetic
machines. Today we call it the unity of form and function. But the Chinese insight
has to do not with form and function’s unity but the relation between form and
formlessness. It has a particular structure that we conceptualize in the Emergent
Meta-system formation but which has been available in a concrete embodiment as
the game of Go for thousands of years. At the interface between form and
formlessness there is a reflective co-production where nothing and something
produce each other. Within the Western tradition we only get this insight in some
fringe theosophical texts whereas in China it was a central focus of all artistic
creation216 and, as we see now, their intellectual games as well. It is important to
recognize that the EMS structure has an embodiment in Go because it brings it out
of the esoteric theoretical realm and places it in a realm of intellectual gaming that
everyone has access to. All you need to do is learn to play Go and you will have an
intuitive understanding of the Emergent Meta-System formation.
If we need proof that the EMS formation was present in the Chinese tradition
as an underlying model we might also look at the I Ching. The I Ching217 is an
ancient oracle with is thought to be the oldest book. That book is divided into 64
chapters each describing six lines with cryptic phrases. A new version of the I Ching
has just been published which give us a glimpse of its earlier history. This version
was found among the Mawangdai texts and is dated to the second century BC. It
shines light on the Confucian interpretation of the I Ching and along with other texts
found at the grave site in 1973 demonstrates the bridge between Taoism and
Confucianism in Chinese history which was lost in the preserved tradition. Looking
at the I Ching we see another cultural artifact poised at the same threshold of
complexity as Chess. But here instead of a game we have a method of divining the
future. That divination process is performed using yarrow stalks by a specific series
of steps. If we look at the divination process we see an image of the Emergent Meta-
system. The stalks themselves are the seeds. They are manipulated to give the first
hexagram composed of changing and unchanging lines which shows us the action of
the creation operator. Then the young lines change to old lines producing a second
hexagram. This transformation depicts a mutual action between the lines of the
hexagram that effects a transformation. The two hexagrams are compared to the
situation and give a framework for interpreting the situation which prior to the
divination did not exist. The comparison of the two hexagrams with the situation
framed by the question of the diviner that was recorded beforehand gives a new
216. The Propensity of Things op.cit.

217. Shchuskii, I.K. [1979] Researches on the I Ching. New Jersey, Princeton U.P. See also Wilhelm, H. [1977] Heaven, Earth,
and Man in the Book of Changes. Seattle, U. Washington Press.
101
viewpoint on the situation and allows a gestalt to form. There are many possible
actions one might take to respond to a particular situation. These candidate action
possibilities cancel each other out in the presence of the interpretation rendered by
the divination process. This exemplifies the presence of the annihilation operator in
which all the contrary possible actions annihilate to produce the final action as a side
effect which is influenced by the interpretation of the situation that falls our from the
divination. In divination unconscious proclivities are allowed to manifest and
influence actions. Once we decide on an action and act then a new situation is
produced and another opportunity for divination presents itself. We can think of this
EMS cycle as the way individual moves are decided in the game of Go. Thus there
is the macro EMS cycle that governs the cycle of games and the micro EMS cycle
that governs the cycle of moves within a game. These two cycles can be seen as
complementary to each other. Together they give a coherent model of action based
on meta-systems modeling rather than systems modeling, that is based on the
assumption of discontinuity rather than continuity. In a meta-systems model the
break between games or moves is absolute. The problem becomes how to explain
appearance of continuity in spite of this radical break between moves or games.
Emergent Meta-systems theory is the answer to that question long known tacitly by
the Chinese and preserved in their oldest, and until now inscrutable cultural objects.
We find no theoretical formalization of this theory in China, but the implict
understanding that these artifacts connote gives us an extremely precise model of the
archetype of the Dragon which swirls in and out of the mist of formlessness in many
Chinese paintings like the one in the Nelson Gallery in Kansas City that I admired in
my youth. It portrays five intertwined dragons entangled in the mist. These Dragons
give us an image of the Five Hsing218 or transformations that are the basis of Chinese
cosmology. The five Hsing219 are named Earth, Water, Fire, Metal and Wood. They
form a hypercycle based on the structure of the penthedron in four dimensional
space. Here formlessness is identified with the fourth dimension. The EMS
formation shows how the Five Hsing220 might interact with the more traditional four
elements221 (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) which according to Ibn al-Arabi222 are the
receptivities of the Earth (Ard) in relation to the Celestial Causes. When we multiply
the five transformations by the four receptivities we get twenty source forms. We can
see these source forms if we take out the symmetries of substitution and inversion
218. Matsumoto, K. and Birch, S. [1983] Five Elements and Ten Stems. Brookline MA, Paradigm Publications. See also Connelly,
D.M. [1979] Traditional Acupuncture and the Law of Five Elements. Columbia MD, Center for Traditional Acupuncture.
219. Major, J. S. [1984] “The Five Phases, Magic Squares and Schematic Cosmography” pages 133-167 in Explorations in Early
Chinese Cosmology. Edited by H. Rosemont, Jr. JAAR Thematic Studies, Scholars Press.
220. Lawson-Wood, D.J. [1965] Five Elements of Acupuncture and Chinese Massage. Devon UK, Bradford Holsworthy Health
Science Press. See also Lawson-Wood, D.J. [1964] Acupuncture Handbook. Rustington Sussex UK, Health Science
Press.
221. Hauschka [1966] The Nature of Substance. London, V. Stuart Ltd.
222. Shaykh ibn Arabi al-Akbar The Mekkan Revelations, Chapter 11 (manuscript translation). See also Muhyiddin ibn al-Arabi
[1980] Seals of Wisdom. Norwich, UK, Diwan Press.
102
out of the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching. These source forms also may be seen to
appear in the letter forms of the Arabic alphabet223 and the Mayan day names. They
are the primary archetypal sources that underlie the patterning of the Quran which is
based on multiples of nineteen. The pattern is nineteen to twenty224. In other words
the Alif is sometimes included and sometimes excluded. The Alif is the source of the
other letters225. There are many different embodiments of these nineteen to twenty
sources that appear within the mirroring of the I Ching. In Go this numerology
appears as the two sets of nineteen orthogonal lines that form the grid of the Go
board. Our problem is to understand these sources in a modern context in which they
are theoretically meaningful and not merely an incomprehensible archaic
numerology. We do this by understanding how these ancient images of the Emergent
Meta-System operate and how they tie together to give a significant theoretical
explanation of what is beyond General Systems Theory. What is beyond the system
is the environment. The meta-systems define the environment as not a unified gestalt
but instead a dual and complementary un-unified field. This field has a specific
structure and within that structure we see the relation between the fourth dimensional
pentahedron interacting with the three dimensional tetrahedron as a model of the
interaction of Heaven and Earth, Yang and Yin. Out of this the twenty possible
interactions appear and these are given various images by different cultures
throughout history. In the Mayan instance these were seen as the daynames which
participates in a very complex calenderical system. In the instance of Islamic cultural
it was seen as letters which are the non-dual between physus and logos which exist
in the context of a complex linguistic milieu which is structured very mathematically
through Arabic grammar226. So we do not merely posit that any random set of twenty
things is an embodiment of the twenty interactions between heaven and earth, but
rather take into account the entire systems of relations that these embodiments of the
twenty interactions appear in each case. And these two examples, Mayan Day Names
and Root227 Arabic Letter Forms strike us as two instances where the whole context
taken together seems to be an image of the Emergent Meta-System formation. The
nineteen to twenty letter forms, twenty day names, twenty sources in the I Ching and
nineteen lines of the Go board represent the fundamental relation between heaven
(no-wheres) and earth (some-wheres) in the dynamic of interpenetration. In that
223. Abd al_Qadir as-Sufi [1975] The Way of Muhammad. Norwich, UK, Diwan Press. See also Abd al_Qadir as-Sufi [1979] In-
dications from Signs. Norwich, UK, Diwan Press.
224. Sometimes the Alif(ientity element) is counted and sometimes it is not counted.
225. Letters have been traditionally seen by Sufic writers as the non-dual between Physus and Logos so that they do not accept the
existence of materialistic atoms. They are non-dual at every level of the differentiation of the world. As spoken or written
they are the non-dual between physus and logos. As they represent the words of God as in the Quran they are non-dual
between God (unlimited) and creation (limited) and thus are called uncreated. As the revelation only contains a small
number of the words of God according to his revelation, then they are non-dual between having and non-having as we
have some of those precious words and not others. As they exist as sources from which things arise they are non-dual
between existence and non-existence. See the explanation of Shaykh al-Akbar in the Seals of Wisdom. A good source is
Chittick, Wm. C. [1989] The Sufi Path of Knowledge. SUNY.Chittick, Wm. C. [1998] TheSelf Disclosure of God. SUNY
103
interaction monads of the Emergent Meta-system are continually coming into

existence and then being annihilated. Each interaction of a Hsing with a receptivity
of the earth exists as a monadic swarm. In the next moment it has vanished to be
replaced by another monadic swarm whose quality is that of yet another Hsing-
Element interaction. So the EMS cycle probabalistically moves between different
qualitative regimes as the different dragons intertwine. It is impossible to tell if the
EMS cycle jumping from quality regime to quality regime or is instead a set of five
different EMS cycles sticking to the same quality regime. Like the painting you
cannot tell which sinewy form is connected to which dragon as they pop in and out
of existence on this side of the barrier of formlessness.
The fundamental idea which is expressed in chapter eleven of the Mekkan

Revelations is that each celestial cause has four ‘wives’. This is to say it has four
different receptivities. The celestial cause itself can be seen as unified or as broken
up into the various Hsing228. So when the Hsing hits the ‘Ard’ or Earth a particular
set of four interactions occur. This is like dropping four pebbles in a pond. Four
different sets of wave rings begin perturbing the surface of the pond. These intersect
and interact producing a complex interference pattern. This pattern is viewed in
terms of sets of opposites. Those sets of opposites permute to produce a set of
possible qualitative states for the entire system. The system as a whole begins
popping around or cycling around these various possible qualitative states. We
understand these qualitative transformations through the application of the trigrams
or hexagrams of the I Ching. But the phenomena we are observing is really the
interaction and interference of the four different lines of causation coming from a
226. In Arabic there are fifteen forms (sometimes called types) for each verb which might be better named as registeres. These
regsters are an image of the Emergent Meta-System Formation. Thus each verb can be seen as articulating some of the
EMS formation and simulating the fundamental structure of existence..
EMS IN ARABIC VERB REGISTERS

X VI
VIII
monad viewpoint
IV III
I
XI IX II
seed VII candidate
XII XIII V
XIV XV
227. undotted letters

228. Cheng, Chung-Ying [1987] “Preliminary Study of the Question of Categories in Chinese Philosophy” in Chinese Studies in
Philosophy. Winter, 1986-87, Volume XVIII, Number 2, pp. 29-97. (M.E. Sharpe Inc Armonk NY.) See also Wilcsek, F
and Devine, B. [1988] Longing for the Harmonies. N.Y. W.W. Norton. The structure of the ‘colors’ of the strong and
weak forces have the same structure as the Hsing.
104
single celestial cause. Since the celestial causes, Hsing, form a hypercycle on the
form of the pentahedron in four dimensional space then there is a coherent relation
between the various celestial causations with respect to the receptive media of the
Earth. The pentahedron of four dimensional space is made up of two intertwined
mobius strips229 which define together the control cycle that interoperates with the
production cycle of the five Hsing. Two intertwined mobius strips have a form
similar to the kleinian bottle. The kleinian bottle as we will see is an image of the
autopoietic systems’s surface. So in the image of the four dimensional Platonic solid
of the pentahedron we have a fusion of an image of the hyper-cycle230 of the
autopoietic system and the spacetime representation of its boundary. Steve Rosen
likens the kleinian bottle with the strange properties of the crucible of the alchemists.
This gives some hint of the peculiar properties of the autopoietic system. To us this
hyper-cycle which is at the center of Chinese Alchemy appears as an autopoietic
special system with its imaginary hypercycle controlling the autopoietic nodes
within the autopoietic network. We see it as self-organizing because within the
Western Scientific worldview we do not accept the unseen, i.e. the heavens of
interpenetration. But to those who do accept the unseen, or heavens, this self-
organization is the interaction between unseen causes from the heavens and tangible
receptive earth. We see this in our tradition in the description that Heidegger uses in
his essay “The Origin of the Work of Art.” There he describes earth and its relation
to the openspaces in which the earth is enhanced and brought out so that it may be
seen from an aesthetic appreciation. In that description Heidegger talks about the
fourfold of Heaven/Earth//Immortals/Mortals. This fourfold is an image of the
reflexive special system with its fourway mirroring. Thus our tradition is not devoid
of an appreciation of what the Chinese traditional scientific viewpoint was
attempting to represent which can be found in different ways as part of the Islamic
and Mayan traditions as well.
Another example of the EMS formation within the Western philosophical

tradition is Skepticism. The process of skeptical engagement in the dialectic can be
seen as an excellent image of the EMS structure. The Skepticism of Sextus
Empiricus is actually an extremely sophisticated philosophical stance which is
caricatured and distorted by many of his attackers. This cultural artifact exemplifies
how the EMS structure can appear within the dialectical unfolding as symbiotic with
it. In skepticism appearance has the position of the seeds. From appearances
opinions arise as to the status of non-observables. We jump to conclusions and this
is the creation operator that gives rise to judgements about non-observables. The
judgements exist as a swarm that together make up the opinion of a particular
philosopher concerning the non-observables. Judgements of different philosophers
229. Bernardi, C. and Moscucci, M. [1980] “Investigating Some Geometrical Features of 4-Space” Mathematical Gazette Volume
64, #4, June 1980 pp. 90-99
230. Eigen, M. and Winkler, R. [1981] Laws of the Game: How the principles of nature govern change. N.Y. Harper and Row.
105
come into conflict which exemplifies their mutual action on each other. Out of the
conflict arises philosophical positions which are viewpoints on the field of possible
judgements. The skeptic applies his arguments to these judgements disproving all
and sundry as a means of attempting to keep the dialectic going. This application of
arguments that have the purpose of continuing the debate appear through a process
of gestalt pattern formation. Through that process opposite philosophical positions
are produced that cancel what ever other arguments have appeared naturally within
field of discourse. These candidate philosophical positions cancel each other and
through that the skeptic attains peace. The skeptic suspends the need for a final
answer in the process of keeping the dialectic in motion. The skeptic continually uses
neither . . . nor kinds of argumentation to fend off any final judgement vis a vis non-
observables. The skeptic thus lives in a symbiotic relation with the dialectician. The
dialectician uses both . . . and type arguments in order to continually produce
synthesis in the process of debate. As the synthesis arises the skeptic produces its
antithesis and prevents the dialectic from reaching any conclusion. The point is that
skepticism lives within the interstices of the dialectic and can exist as a symbiant to
the dialectical process. It perfectly models the EMS formation that assumes
discontinuity rather than continuity. With the example of skepticism we can see that
the EMS is something that is not completely foreign to our worldview and can have
philosophical meaning as a method of dealing with the endless cancellation of
antinomies.
We can see the EMS formation as more central to our philosophical tradition
if we consider Plato’s CAVE analogy in this connection. Plato’s Laws and Republic
are central texts to the Western Philosophical tradition along with his other
dialogues. The Republic exemplifies Rta, or Right, and the Laws exemplifies
Nomos, or Order. These are two of the great non-dual concepts, which along with
the Good231 and Fate232, are at the core of the Western worldview. Our Indo-
European tradition has a dualistic worldview that articulates itself around these
central non-dual concepts. In the Republic justice is considered in the context of the
distribution of rights in the city which is proposed as a macro model of the soul. The
Republic goes beyond the definition of Rta toward the indication of the next deeper
non-dual beyond Rta and Nomos which is the Good. It is in this context that Socrates
presents the three analogies of the Sun, Divided Line, and the Cave. The source of
the Good is portrayed as the equivalent of the visible sun in the realm of the invisible
intelligibles. Just as appearances are distinguished from the real so too mathematical
intelligibles founded on axioms are distinguished from intelligibles grounded on the
source of the good. The parable of the cave narrates the journey of one who
experiences the vision of the source of the Good. The features of this parable are an
231. Nussbaum, M. C. [1986] The fragility of goodness : luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge; New York
: Cambridge University Press.
232. Gleven, M. [1991] Why Me: A Philosophical Inquiry into Fate. De Kalb, North IL University Press.
106
image of the EMS formation. I was led to realize this by thinking about William
Theaux’s characterization of the parable of the cave in terms of The Art of Memory
by Francis Yates which talks about the mnemonic devices developed as a means of
remembering things. Mnemonic devices are techniques for augmenting memory.
They were traditionally thought to be discovered by Simonides who remembered the
names of crushed guests by which places they occupied when the roof caved in at a
symposia at which he was reciting his poetry about the twin gods Castor and Pollux.
Simonides narrowly escaped with the help of Castor and Pollux who repaid his praise
by saving him. His ability to remember people in places was turned into a technique
by which all sorts of things were remembered until in the Renaissance whole
encyclopedic theaters were developed that housed the places and things of secular
knowledge just as the Cathedrals of European Christianity did for sacred knowledge
before the Renaissance. Theaux showed that the inhabitants of the cave were people
tied to places and that the escapee who was torn out of the cave was like Simonides
who leaves the group and returns. The new knowledge of the escapee is similar to
the remembrance of Simonides. Since we know from the Meno that all knowledge is
recollected it makes sense to posit this kind of interpretation. Once we have the
structure of the mnemonic technique to lay over the Parable of the Cave it is possible
to see the EMS formation. This is because we begin to reflect on the difference
between the leaving and entering and what is happening inside the cave. What is
occurring in the cave is a presentation to bound spectators by Sophists who carry
objects that produce the shadows of their appearance on the walls of the cave. This
is an image of the projection mechanism of Being. Being is the production of illusory
continuity. We see this mechanism in film, TV, computers and other similar media
that reproduce the fundamental essence of projection and presentation that is the
result of the social construction of Being. The illusory continuum of images, sounds,
text, etc. embodies Pure Being. The running of the Projection Mechanism itself is the
ready-to-hand infrastructure that embodies Process Being. Hyper Being is the
differences between the images and between the parts of the projection mechanism
and most of all between the illusion and the mechanism that produces the illusion.
All projection is a kind of writing of differences which embody Hyper Being through
their differing and deferring (i.e. DifferAnce). In every projection situation is
something that never appears. In the Cave the Sophist who carries the objects is in
the place of the Essence of Manifestation which is already always hidden behind the
appearances. The realization that the appearances are animated by the actions of the
Wizard of Oz figure of the Sophist so that “what is shown is the same as what is
hidden” is the embodiment of Wild Being within the projection mechanism. The
differences between the kinds of Being exemplify all the essential aspects of the
projection mechanism of illusion within the Western worldview. What we must ask
is, What is the nature of the cave itself? Clearly it must have the nature of Non-Being.
thus when we look at Parmenides’ three ways we see that appearance is projected by
Being in all its kinds onto the screen of Non-Being. Like the rock of the mountain in
which the cave exists Non-Being is a seemingly impossible barrier to pass. The only
107
way which seems possible is to submit to the projection mechanism’s working as

either sophist or spectator. As we have seen there are different degrees of Sophistry
corresponding to levels of initiation. The spectator is a man of earth who only
believes in what he can hold in his hand. The kinds of Being are different modalities
of holding (pointing, grasping, bearing, encompassing) of the spectators being-in-
the-world as Dasein (being-there). The Sophist may be initiated into the lesser
mysteries and believe in the unseen, but think it is all flux. This one is immersed in
the flow of the projection mechanism that underlies the maintenance of illusory
continuity. Or the Sophist may be initiated into the greater mysteries and know like
Parmenides that the projection mechanism itself has the nature of the stasis of
illusory continuity itself. This means the mechanism producing the illusion is itself
illusory and the operator and the operand are unified like the marks in Laws of Form.
This means there is no difference between the illusion and what produces it. Both are
illusory and the mechanism “really” isn’t moving at all. Everything is static like four
dimensional spacetime blocks. The cave itself never transforms even though the
appearances continuously change. The heirophant knows that “we need change and
changelessness at the same time.” He is the initiator of the other lower level sophists.
Each level of sophist appears as a man of earth to the one above him. The heirophant
knows that the projection mechanism of the cave itself must change erratically in
order to sustain showing and hiding processes. This non-duality between change and
changelessness is expressed in the saying “the more things change the more they say
the same” is the source of emergent events in which the underlying patterning of the
projection mechanism shifts for no apparent reason. We call these shifts the arising
of new facts, novel theories, radical paradigms, changed epistemes or different
interpretation of Being. Emergences can occur at different levels of our tradition. But
emergences are what allow things to appear fundamentally changed through the
sporadic non-caused alteration of some aspect of the projection mechanism by itself,
spontaneously. What remains the same is the projection of nihilism233 which is
intensified through the drive to create a more and more torturous total environment
that encompasses both the sophists and the men of earth who are trapped in a master
slave dialectic within the cave. The heirophant is the one who recognizes the
emergent event that rewrites history and re-casts the future, but also who has an
inkling that this seeming solution to perceived problems will turn out to make things
worse once its own side effects are known. The one who recognizes emergence
within the cave is the ultimate sophist like the one in Plato’s dialogue who has the
cogency of Socrates. In the Republic Socrates is playing the roles of all these sophists
for the young men to whom Socrates is talking. He is attempting to lead them up out
of the cave step by step. When we escape the cave we essentially go beyond Being
out into the openness of existence. Plato describes the crystalline beauty of this world
beyond the cave where all the sources of the images and objects within the cave come
from originally. This difference between Being and Existence expresses itself in the
233. Rosen, S. [1969] Nihilism: a philosophical essay. New Haven, Yale University Press.
108
fact that there is no fifth meta-level of Being. This difference is signified as an

interface between Being and the Void of the Taoists, or the Emptiness of the
Buddhists. It consists of the realization that the projected appearances and the
designated as real projection mechanism itself (i.e. the essences) are both utterly
illusory. What exists beyond the cave is the realm of interpenetration of all things. In
this sense the appearances may show us a series of systemic gestalts and outside the
cave exists the ultimate meta-system. So that as we move out of our immersion in the
illusory continuity of the flowing appearances we fall back step by step through the
levels of the special systems on our way out of the cave. The first step is for the
spectator to lose their suspension of disbelief and notice the theater in which the
movie of appearances is occurring. Then he notices that the images are ordered from
beyond themselves by the projection process. This ordering of the disseminating
machine which the desiring machine consumes voraciously brings us out to the level
of recognizing the action of neg-entropy that is the center of action in the cave. The
spectator becomes aware of the process by which the dissipation of order occurs that
has enchanted him and thus he breaks his enchantment. Eventually the spectator
recognizes there is a relation between himself and the Sophist who is the source of
order. This relation is a master-slave dialectic relation due to the Spectator’s being
bound. Also there is a relation to others who are also bound and enchanted.
Eventually the spectator realizes that these relationships are homeostatic. This is to
say that there is a closed loop between the performance of the sophist and his
audience that exemplifies resonance such that the trance of suspended disbelief is not
broken. This is how we see the autopoietic closure appearing as an emergent
phenomenon in the cave. The autopoietic phenomenon is shown in the traces not just
of the spectator but of all the spectators together and of the sophists who are
orchestrating the play of images. The sophist must continually come up with
something new to engage the spectators and maintain their interest. This continual
differing and deferring of the new is what shows us Hyper Being within the cave.
The next level of emergent effect is the realization of the social basis of the
maintenance of traces. The cave is the social constitution by everyone involved.
Prisoners and Guards collude to produce the alienating social environment. All the
traces are the result of social practice and the maintenance of social norms even of
cruelty and torture. Eventually this realization of the reflexive level of the special
systems manifestation leads us to comprehend Wild Being. Wild Being is the point
where the dualities vanish and we see between master and slave, prisoner and guard,
male and female roles in society, spectator and performer, the indications of non-
dualities. Each member of the audience may attain the view of the ultimate sophist
who comprehends the necessity of change and changelessness at the same time. That
is a description of the autopoietic system with its changing structure and its
unchanging organization. So it is any of them who can first recognize an emergence
out of the propensities and dispositions of the production of illusion. Wild Being is
the point at which the emergences first appear to those in the cave. Everyone is in
rapt attention looking for those discontinuous changes that will end up restructuring
109
the performance, making it at once more fascinating and also more terrible.
Emergences very existence tells us that there must be something beyond the cave --
the source form which the utterly new arrives -- which is the inherent diversity and
variety of existence. The origin beyond the cave is the dual of the emergent event
within the cave. Because there is emergence we have an intimation that there must
be a “beyond” outside the projection mechanism of Being that produces illusory
continuity of appearances in the cave, i.e. existence. Understanding emergences is an
intelligibility that goes beyond the axiomatics of mathematics. It makes us realize
that beyond the images of the intelligible order that we see in mathematical
categories there must be intrinsic non-dual order (nomos) itself. Also beyond the
nomos must be a series of non-duals that sink ever deeper foundations into the
bedrock of existence. The next deeper level is RTA, or Cosmic Harmony, (Right or
Arte, excellence) and the next deeper level after that is the non-dual source of the
Good, i.e. the origin of the endless variety and bounties that arise from existence.
Beyond these are other even deeper non-duals such as Fate until we eventually
approach the non-dual origin beyond all the various images of non-duality. Plato’s
purpose is to show that beyond the nomos of the autopoietic city there is an image of
perfect justice where all the rights are distributed among the citizens and that those
rights are the citizens and their responsibilities are rooted in the Good because it is
the good which gives each their different natures that fit them to different tasks
within the city perfectly as we see in the Republic. If you do not think that those ideas
are significant for us then ponder the fact that we have a constitution in the US which
embodies the nomos of our political life and attached to that is a bill of rights. So for
us the nomos is foundational and the Rta is a supplement. For Plato it was the reverse.
His best city was based on just distribution of rights and responsibilities and his
second best city is based on nomos by articulating an autopoietic law. The rulers of
the city of the Laws look out beyond their city at the external world for changes and
novelties. The rulers of the inhuman city of the gods seen in the Republic look
instead internally at the source of the Good itself from which all variety springs and
thus at the source of the emergent events that will restructure the world. Thus, in the
Republic the scene is set by the emergence of a new goddess within the city. Our
United States Declaration of Independence alludes to the good by saying that each
individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So both Plato’s
cities and our modern constitution indicate the same non-dual sources beyond the
play of master-slave relations that we imposed on us within the city and which
alienate us.
The only real difference is between existence and Being which occurs when
we reach the limit of the ascension of the meta-levels of Being. This difference is
experienced when Simonides leaves the room to return to find the impious spectators
to his performance crushed. It is like the difference that the escapee from the cave of
experiences on his return that he finds impossible to express. This difference is
absolute. that is why it is marked by the creation and annihilation operators in the
110
EMS formation. Outside the realm of creation lies the seeds which are the order that
cannot be axiomized yet remains intelligible. These seeds unfold to reveal the layers
of Nomos, Rta, the Good as well as deeper layers of the bedrock of existence like
Fate. In the cave are beings which we can identify with monads. These monads are
created when they come into being from their roots in existence and they are
destroyed when they leave the care of Being and return to the realm of potentials and
dispositions beyond Being. The monads encompass everything within the cave and
the Buddhists would have called them dharmas, but we project illusion onto them.
The monads in our case are divided into classes. The lowest class is the serfs in
bondage. The higher classes are those initiated into the lesser and greater mysteries
of the projection system of the cave. These are the various levels in the hierarchies
of ‘Magicians’ and sophists that keep the corporations working and thus maintain the
illusion. It is precisely mutual action which is denied in the bond of the spectators
enthralled by the performance of the sophist/magicians. What is allowed is gestalt
pattern formation by which the appearances are synthesized by the spectators. So
these two meta-operators are distinguished by their disappropriate affirmation and
denial. Now the viewpoints are produced by the various levels of initiation when see
ever deeper into the process of illusion production in the cave. These levels of
initiation that Plato talks about in the Sophist dialogue are realizations of greater and
greater depths of the interiors of the monads -- whether they are bound to action like
the magician-sophists or bound to be only spectators. The candidates are those which
realize the possibility of emergences. With emergences new possibilities erupt into
the world and others close off. It is the candidates who realize that there must be
something beyond the cave and it is among those that certain candidates are forced
out to look at existence itself without the covering of Being -- that subtle clinging
and craving. Existence is that which is both true and false and at the same time
neither true nor false. Existence is that which is both real and unreal and at the same
time neither illusory or real. Existence is that which is both present and absent and
at the same time neither present nor absent. Existence is that which is both identical
and different and at the same time neither identical nor different. Existence is supra-
rational beyond paradoxicality of the mixing of everything chaotically within the
cave at the level of Wild Being. As supra-rational existence is a realm of crystal clear
non-nihilistic distinctions apart form the production of nihilism by the projection
mechanism of Being. Supra-rationality and paradoxicality entail each other and
spiral around each other continuously falling into each other and becoming each
other. Within paradoxicality exists a moment of supra-rationality and within supra-
rationality exists a moment of paradoxicality. They interpenetrate like Yin and Yang
which transform into each other, yet are always very distinct, and remain forever
separated and isolated. The candidates for the experience of existence are turned
away from being and experience the interpenetration of the utterly non-dual realm
beyond the play of dualities against each other. These candidates experience not just
the loss of illusion but the loss of reality. These candidates experience not just the
disappearance of untruth but the evaporation of Truth. These candidates experience
111
not just the vanishing of difference but also the loss of identity. These candidates
experience not just the absence of their fellows but the evaporation of the oppressive
presence of things as they are projected by the projection mechanism of Being as
well. These candidates experience the annihilation of their selves in the sense that
Jung uses the term for the totality of the conscious (present) and unconscious (absent
and hidden) aspects of ourselves. This annihilation destroys their entire world along
with their selves. They become merely non-dual seeds of a future vision when they
return to the care unable to express what they have seen of the source of goodness.
Those seeds are actualized by the creation operator to produce them as emergent
events themselves when they reenter the cave. As such they bring a new way of
looking at the cave, a viewpoint informed by what lies beyond the cave of Being, yet
is not part of the mountain of Non-Being that encompasses the cave. The non-dual
exit takes a route that does not encounter the barrier of Non-Being. That route opens
up at the point of perfect balance where the anomalous order of the special systems
arise and where hyper-efficiency is achieved. As Theaux says, the spectators in the
cave are the diners in the banquet of the Symposium. So we meet the same people in
Plato’s Symposium discussing Love. Love is the reflexive human ultra-efficiency.
In the symposium we are given seven different guises for Love which appears when
the guests are bound not to drink and the flute girls are sent away. As Sadler says we
need to found our social phenomenology upon the sense of hearing and our
experience of love. However, he only deals himself with the experience of romantic
love which fills the whole world for the love and the beloved. In the Symposium the
dualism is between the Older male lover and the Younger male beloved. As we
ascend the ladder of speeches we are moving through the successive layers of the
special systems. But here we are in the company of free men, not those bound like
slaves, or imprisoned like women in the caves of the houses. In the men’s quarters
where women are excluded it is possible to speak of love freely. Phaedrus speaks of
love as a goddess and then Pausanias differentiates between two goddesses of love
one ancient and exalted while the other common. Eryximachus, the doctor, turns
from immortality to mortality and sees love as harmoniousness between the
opposites in the body. He agrees with Sadler who says love is like harmonious music.
This speech is interchangeable with that of Aristophanes who is delayed by hiccups.
So it is this speech about resonance that shows us a picture of the dissipative special
system. Love is seen as the spreading of harmonious order that replaces disorder.
This is precisely the nature of a dissipative structure which replaces order or disorder
with a neg-entropic spread of a new order creating a symphony of orderly parts under
the auspices of a newly organized resonance with a myth of dual people (male-male,
male-female, and female-female) who were split and seek always to regain their
wholeness. This picture shows us an excellent image of an autopoietic special system
as a physical primordial bonding of two bodies. This bonding of two bodies breaks
in two and can even break again leaving one footed and one armed half creatures as
they do in Epidocleus’ vision of the breakdown of love into strife. Bodily bonding
for Aristophanes has replaced the boding of souls. Jung speaks of love as a bonding
112
of the Animus and Anima of a male or female, where the inner female of the male
human creature unites with the inner male of the female human creature. This is a
much more realistic image of love than the autopoietic fusion of bodies who were
split asunder in an act of cosmic sacrifice along the lines of Epidocleus image of love
and strife which was meant to marry the visions of Heraclitus and Parmenides.
Agothon comes next and calls love the youngest god who walks softly upon the
heads and hearts of men instilling the virtues of courage, temperance, justice, and
wisdom and bringing order to even the city of the gods, that inhuman immortal city
like the one built in the Republic. This youthful god has replaced the prior rule of
necessity with an overflowing of good qualities and has instilled into the community
a unity of mind as well as kindness and friendship. Poetry then beyond music takes
us into the realm of speech and social intercourse which is our image of the reflexive
special system. But Socrates shows us that this speech is flawed because love can be
neither beautiful nor good. Agathon has produced a nihilistic image of the Reflexive
Social level where a young male love appears out of the split between the ancient
female love and the common female love described by Pausanias.
Socrates then tells us that Diatoma, a woman, who taught him the mysteries of
love, says that love is the mean between all opposites, i.e. is non-dual. This non-
duality of love points us to the other non-dualities like nomos between physus and
logos, or Rta between Apeiron and Peiron, or the Good between Having and Not-
Having, or Fate between Existence and Non-Existence. Diatoma goes on to say that,
contra Aristophanes, we are not seeking wholeness, but instead the eternal
possession of the good and access to that is through the form of the Beautiful. But it
is not just possession but conception and generation of the Beautiful, and thus the
Good. This corresponds to the recognition of emergence. The Beautiful is like the
fire that burns in the cave giving off a chemical light but which makes us understand
the nature of light234 and prepares us to experience the Sun of the Good outside the
cave, i.e. in the realm of the intelligibles. Diatoma recognizes not just generation, but
the generation of the new, as being the key point and so we do so both in body and
through the arts by our souls. Diatoma calls this the lesser mysteries of love where
one goes from the beauty of one form toward the beauty of all forms to the source of
Beauty itself. The recognition of this absolute beauty is the means for preparing to
attempt to recognize the absolute Good. The one who knows this absolute beauty
will not just bring forth images of beauty but realities. This is the way the mortal
attempts to grasp some portion of immortality through the generation of children or
through works that bring glory to his name.
At this point Alcibiades who stands in for Dionysus235 breaks into the party
and derails the speeches describing his love for Socrates and how he was spurned.
234. Good, I.J. [1962] The Scientist Speculates. Heinemann.

235. Anderson, D.E. [1993] The Masks of Dionysos. SUNY.
113
This is our entry into the meta-system or the global economy of desire which
Alcibiades displaced on the level of the body rather than looking for love from
Socrates on the level of the soul. We have moved up a ladder from a single goddess
of love praised by Phaedrus who then split in two in the speech of Pausanias. This
splitting caused a splitting of the body of man and the need to distinguish good from
bad love. This distinction introduced dissipation of order and harmony which
overcomes disagreement when the good love triumphs in the speech of the doctor
Eryximachus. Then Aristophanes offers us a myth of a primordial wholeness which
we lost through sacrifice of the primordial man in the way that Yamir or Prusha were
destroyed which is the primordial Indo-European image of wholeness lost. The
problem is that wholeness and nihilistic fragmentation are opposites and put us under
the spell of duality. Socrates’ Diatoma showed us that love must instead be the non-
dual midpoint between all the opposites and thus a daemon emissary between gods
and men. Agathon produces a nihilistic description of love which attributed
everything, thus nothing, to him. Socrates following Diatoma showed how this
image must be mistaken. But in the process Agathon produces an image of the
Reflexive Social level, just as Aristophanes had shown us the bodily autopoietic
level in his myth, and Enximachus had shown us the image of the dissipation of order
and harmony at the level of the lowest special system. Agathon’s image is reflexive
because it sees the image of love reflected everywhere and in everything. This also
makes it nihilisitic. Nihilism is the disease of the reflective field.
Diatoma does not initiate Socrates into the greater mysteries of love. But it is
clear that the initiation would be to leave the projector of Being and to go out into
existence which is intrinsically void and empty to gaze on the source of the good as
we had prepared for by gazing first at the source of light within the cave which is the
fire of the source of beauty. Alcibiades interprets the fire as eros instead of the source
of beauty that the soul can perceive in laws and institutions or in the sciences.
Alcibiades is the opposite of the one who escapes form the cave. He is the Dionysian
chaotic daemon that comes in from the meta-system to disrupt the attempt to rise
above beauty of the forms. The Aesthetic level where beauty is apprehended in
things is the embodiment of Wild Being. The daemonic is what lies beyond the
aesthetic level out in the general economy of the erotic. This daemon seeks to bind
itself to the teacher of morality, Socrates, who does not respond because he has his
sights set on a higher beauty and on a higher good beyond the hedonistic pleasures.
Kierkegaard says236 that between the Aesthetic (Wild Being) and the Ethical (Hyper
Being) is the domain of irony. Irony thus exemplifies the reflexive and this is why
Plato’s works are so ironic that one never knows whether he is speaking what he
believes or being ironic. In fact, Plato claimed in the seventh letter never to write
about what he was really interested in. Thus we can assume that everything he wrote
was utterly ironic. Irony is the hallmark of the social and the fact that Plato’s
dialogues exemplify social situations full of irony shows us that his dialogs are all
posited at the social level of emergent reflexive special systems between the
114
aesthetic and the moral, but reaching down continuously into the humor that exits at
the next emergent level.
Figure 30:
absurd system Aristophanes Kierkegaard
Transcendental Religion Pure Being
paradoxical (supra-rational) dissipative Aristophanes Kierkegaard
Immanent Religion Process Being
humorous (crying) autopoietic Aristophanes Plato Kierkegaard
Morality Hyper Being
ironic (ridicule) reflexive Plato Kierkegaard
Aesthetic Wild Being
daemonic (eros) meta-system Plato Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard in his works produces a picture of the entire spectrum from the
daemonic to the absurd which spans the gulf between the secular and the holy in his
opinion. This same spectrum need both Aristophanes (Clouds) and Plato
(Symposium) to produce an equal coverage. Aristophanes with his ridicule of the
Young Socrates and Plato with his comparison of Aristophanes and Epidocleus in
the Symposium, and this implies that he is a sophist too, show how these two authors
are locked together with mutual reference. In the Clouds we see Aristophanes
outlining the basic components of the metaphysical era by distinguishing physus
from logos and the unlimited (freedom from debt) from the limited (debt). As Mary
Nichols points out, Plato is directly responding to Aristophanes’ critique and his jabs
at philosophy while showing how the nihilism inherent in every day life pushes men
into the untenable position of philosophy. Oedipus was the first philosopher,
according to Gaux, due to the failure of the heroic initiation. Those who fail at life
seem to be prone to the philosophical weaknesses. Plato picks up the radical idea of
communism and equality of the sexes from Aristophanes treating them ironically
while seeming to take them seriously. So not only do the references interlock but so
236. This interpretation is based on the work of Dennis Keagy [1993] The Way of the Poet: A Nietzschean Transvaluation of Ki-
erkegaard's Pseudonymous Architectonic of Human Existence, Ph.D. dissertation., Newport University: See chapter 1, p.
2: “The teleological thrust of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms began by exploring aesthetic dimension followed by paradigm
shifts to the ethical of authentic selfhood and then positing the self as a theological. In the final theological stage the self
becomes relativized into the power that has brought it into existence.” See also chapter 2, p. 10: “The human teleology
of existence for Kierkegaard appears to have begun posited which if chosen absolutely occasioned an ethically authentic
existence as a self or spirit. Religious arose from the crisis over the relative status of ethics in and the self in particular.
The aesthetic and ethical stages reconciled in the religious stage.”
115
do the ideas that serve as the counterpoint to daily life by dreaming up the most
absurd and paradoxical situations possible and playing out their implications on
stage. Aristophanes represents his play as a pious observance in the Dionysian
rituals. Dionysus is the one god who has tasted death - the forerunner of the Christian
mythos that wells up from Indo-European sources, like Odin who sacrificed himself
to himself and hung on a cross for nine days. Self destruction is the inverse image of
self-production. The myth of Dionysus/Shiva is the story of death and resurrection
which moves form the immanent plane to the transcendental plane. Strangely by an
immortal dying a similar effect is gained as the immortality of the mortal gained by
reproduction or glorious works. The god experiencing death and resurrection and the
mortal striving for remembrance by offspring or his city have much in common
while yet being worlds apart. The human raises himself out of the morass of
hedonistic pleasure, exemplified by Aesthetics, toward immortality through the
consideration of morals while similarly by a god dying and resurrecting produces out
of an immanent polytheism, where all the gods are different, but similarly perfect,
the image of the Avatar or god-man who knows death as we know it. The point of
overlap between these two visions is humor and crying which Palmer in his brilliant
phenomenological study showed were both ambivalent states that may transform
into each other (we laughed so hard we cried or our tears ended in laughter). Of all
the philosophers since Plato, only Kierkegaard seems to have experienced and
articulated this whole spectrum which humanizes the meta-levels of Being and the
interleaved meta-levels of special systems in human terms. The upshot of this is that
we can squarely place the Emergent meta-system and the special systems hierarchy
at the center of our tradition and we can point to how it expresses itself in the human
dimensions it articulates while we see that Kierkegaard’s existentialism is the only
philosophy of religion, or religious philosophy, that can deal with this entire
spectrum. The parable of the cave is a model of the Emergent Meta-system that is
central to philosophy by being found at the center of the Republic as the indication
of its central riddle. And as Theaux says the banquet is an image of the same scene
and there we find articulated the levels of the special systems in the speeches about
the human ultra-efficiency of love. If we are to attempt to build an existential social
phenomenology we could pick no better starting point in our tradition. The picture
of the EMS cycle is not as clear as in skepticism, but what it loses from lack of
clarity, it gains by having alternative pictures of the EMS formation and the special
systems in the two dialogues we bring into conjunction, just as we bring
Aristophanes and Plato into conjunction. In Kierkegaard the conjunctions are
between his different alter egos who in his writings take up different philosophical
and religious positions along the spectrum he was attempting to illustrate.
116
Figure 31: Square of Contraries from Logic
A E
contrary
universal
co
all A is B ntr no A is B
ad
ict
subaltern
subaltern
ion
i on
some A is B d ict
a some A is not B
o ntr
c
particular
contrary
I O
affirmation negation
Another example of the Emergent Meta-system formation we might cite the

square of contraries from logic that gives rise to the Greimas square. That square has
some of the properties of an Emergent Meta-system. It can be seen as dynamic if we
move around it in the way pictured in the following diagram. When rendered
dynamic we see that the square of contraries is a model of the worldview of
Epidocleus where we move from harmony to strife except here we are moving from
complete domination by one of the opposites to complete separation of the two
opposites. The particular statements are half-way houses between these two end
points where some of the opposite is not the same. It is this movement from utter
domination to utter separateness which can be seen as similar to the emergent meta-
system formation. We posit that Aristotle took this formation from Plato and coded
it into his logic as a means of preserving it but that it has been forgotten there in logic
ever since. The fact that we can find some semblance of the Emergent Meta-system
formation in logic tells us that this is a very central idea in the Western worldview
which however has become obscured over time as the connection between the square
of contraries and the Emergent Meta-system representations in Plato has become lost
over the centuries. It is important to realize that the Emergent Meta-system lies
hidden among some of the things we take for granted and are so familiar that we do
not think about them twice. We need to revitalize our view of our tradition by
looking for the Emergent Meta-system formation in places like this which we take
for granted without thinking through thoroughly. If the Emergent Meta-system has
been coded into Logic then that places it at the very center of our tradition. It is a
strange idea that an image of Existence in the form of the EMS is coded into the
structure of logic itself which deals with truth and identity in Being almost
117
exclusively.
Figure 32: EMS in the Square of Contraries from Logic
control exclusion
SEED VIEWPOINT
A E
all A is B
no A is B
Cr
ea tio on
Mutual Action
ati
Annihilation
n
m
F or
rn
a tte
ta lt P
s
Ge
some A is B some A is not B

I O
CANDIDATE MONAD
inclusion independence
Finally we can give the example of the EMS structure from mythology that
appears in the story of Cadamus founding Thebes. In that story the sacrifice of the
cow that stopped is interrupted by the discovery of a dragon. Cadamus kills the
dragon who has killed his men and he sews the dragons teeth (seeds). The men of
earth spring up (creation) to form an army of soldiers (monads). They argue amongst
themselves (mutual action). Cadamus sees this and throws a stone among them
(gestalt) which causes their disagreements to become a full scale fight of each against
all (the scene that opens the Republic and Socrates’ fear). The army kills each other
until only five are left (annihilation). These five (seeds of strife) and harmony help
found Thebes. The five men to one woman theme is seen in the Mahabharata. The
image of five soldiers and Harmonia is an image of what Eryximachus denies that
harmony and disagreement may coexist. The fact that the EMS cycle appears at the
founding of Thebes is another indication that this archetype exists on the boundary
between form and formlessness and that as Jung says in Aion it symbolizes the
totality of the self. That Self is constructed out of the ego (system) and the other
118
archetypes which also correspond to the special systems.

Figure 33:
ego (unity) (I’ of I-It) system
shadow dissipative special system
animus/anima autopoietic special system
wise old man/cathonic female reflexive special system
self (totality) (I” of I-Thou) meta-system
That self is precisely what is annihilated if it is pulled out of the cave and made
to stare at the source of the Good which causes blindness so that the returning
escapee is like Tereseus and the other seers. That self then becomes an emergent
event within its former worldview when it reenters it. Socrates wants to convince his
guardians that they are born of earth like the army of the dragons teeth. If the
spectators of the cave were not bound they would likely do each other harm as well.
It is precisely mutual action and particularly this destructive mutual action that is
precluded. So annihilation cannot be mutual self-destruction but must be instead be
a transformation of the soul by a vision of empty non-dual existence. Instead of
someone leaving Cadamus introduces a stone. Socrates says he is turned to stone by
the previous speeches in the symposium. This stone is mentioned in the Aion of Jung
as the philosophers stone (lapis). It is a catalyst that turns lead into gold. It allows the
latent emergent propensities to manifest. The dragon is the serpent which appears in
the Aion model of the self. The Anthropos is the whole man that Aristophanes
defines which is the reference for comprehending the particularity of the normal
human being (homo). The god Aion which appears in Mithraic iconography has a
lion’s head and a snake wrapped around its body with its head over the top of the
head of the lion looking forward. This figure stands on a sphere. Aion is a synthesis
of the different phases of transformation: Lion, Man, Serpent, Stone that symbolize
the EMS cycle in Alchemy and Gnostic religion. Jung manages to produce an image
of the Emergent Meta-system out of his various Alchemical and Gnostic materials.
What led him to this is not clear but he definitely was on the right track from the point
of view of this study of historical examples of the EMS formation. This image of
transformation is similar to the old man of the sea who Menelaus wrestled and held
onto or Thetis who Peleus married. The EMS formation is purely transformational
because it assumes discontinuity rather than continuity and then tries to explain the
later not the former. So looking at the transformational scene the focus should not be
on the different forms per se, but instead on the transitions between forms, then the
entity sinks momentarily into formlessness, out of which form and anti-form appear,
only to cancel each other out again like virtual particles are meant to do. The
definition of the edge between form and formlessness is more important than any of
the forms as such. The definition of this boundary symbolized by the Dragon
119
(winged and wingless) is the basic function that the EMS cycle plays. We see it in
Go, I Ching, Skeptical Philosophy, parable of the Cave in Plato and in the
Symposium as well as certain myths and other sources237.
Emergent Meta-Systems contain a meta-algebra with four operations

(creation, annihilation, mutual action, and gestalt pattern formation) that operate
upon the aspects that underlie the Laws of Form/Pattern (something, nothing,
layering, and multiplicity). Each operator of the meta-algebra derives from either
normal algebra or one of the hyper-complex algebras through the emergence of
properties at each algebraic level. It is the emergent properties of the algebras that
become the meta-systemic operators of the meta-algebra. We will now track this
unfolding process step by step through its four stages. Assuming that the system may
be created by the imposition of order that reaches culmination in the production of
continuity, we start from that foundation that defines the possibilities of General
Systems Theory to explore the successive arising of the emergent special systems
(partial meta-systems or faceted systems) until we reach the limit at which the pure
meta-systems arise. This series of stages allow us to build complex analogies
between Hyper-complex algebras and the theory of special systems and meta-
237. Some of these other sources are Sufic works such as that of Sidi Ali al-Jamal [1977] Meaning of Man. Norwich UK: Diwan
Press. In this work there are four groups of people: Kafir, Common Muslim, Elite Muslim and Elite of the Elite Muslims
which are singled out for intense study. These form an Emergent Meta-system cycle as noted on page 274 bottom para-
graph when it refers to “Your Lord finished with the four he created.” We interpret these groups of people in terms of the
System/Meta-system, Reflexive Special System, Dissipative Special System and Autopoietic Special System respectively
and note that they form an EMS cycle. This interpretation makes The Meaning of Man a handbook on Special Systems
Theory as these groups of people are described throughout. Another image of the EMS cycle occurs on page 316 first
complete paragraph. Another source is Muhyiddin Ibn al-Arabi who in the Mekkan Revelations Chapter 10 describes the
four creations Adam, Eve, Mary, and Jesus. These are an image of the EMS cycle as well. In the Fusis al Hikam (Seals
of Wisdom, Norwich UK: Diwan Press, 1980) he describes the special systems by saying on page 46: “It is the same for
nature and what is manifest from it. We do not see it diminishing by what appears from it nor increasing by the lack of
what other than it manifests. That which is manifested is not other than it, nor is it the same as what is manifested accord-
ing to the variety of forms in principle. This one is cold and dry, and that one is hot and dry. They are joined by dryness,
and distinct by another quality. The common source is nature and the world of nature is composed in one mirror. Rather
it is one form in different mirrors. {paragraph} There is only hyra by the dispersal of perspectives. Who ever knows what
we have said is not confused. If he is increased in knowledge, it is only from the principle of place, and place is only the
source of a source-form in which Allah varies in locus of tajalli. Conditions vary, so He assumes every condition. There
is no condition except for the source in which He makes tajalli of Himself, and there is nothing except this.” These ref-
erences give a clear indication that the Special Systems and Emergent Meta-systems Theories were a part of the core wis-
dom of the Islamic Sufic tradition based in revelation. In fact, the one part of the Sharia which is most precisely delineated
in Quran is that concerning distribution of property when someone dies. The complexity of that caused the Muslims to
create Algebra. The Special Systems arise from the relaxation of the properties of Algebra. Thus, the mathematical basis
of Special Systems Theory arises from a mathematical discipline which was produced in direct response to the Quran.
The locus classicus of Emergent Meta-systems Theory in the Quran may be seen by an interpretation of the story of Musa,
Kidhr, Pharaoh, and the Bani Israel scattered throughout the Quran. These stories show the relations between the four
kinds of people that Sidi Ali al-Jamal speaks of in The Meaning of Man (page 274) and also use the four aspects of the
Meta-system, i.e. source, origin, arena, and stream, to indicate the relation to the meta-system of the EMS cycle of these
four kinds of people. The Theory also shows up in Islamic Kalam (Theology) in the Asharite theory of Temporal Atoms.
It may also be seen to be etched into the Arabic language in the guise of the fifteen Verbal registers (or often called types
or forms).
120
systems. The analogy has the form:

Figure 34: Special Systems Analogy
real : system
:: complexnion : dissipative special system
:: quaternion : autopoietic special system
:: octonion : reflexive special system
:: sedenion (or higher) : meta-system
This analogy exists because the mathematical necessity of alternating division

algebras as a very special structure is embedded in the nomos beyond the split
between logos (mathematics in the mind) and physus (physical systems). It is the
intrinsic non-duality of existence that gives force to the analogy. But the analogy
only holds in very special circumstances that occur beyond the restricted economy
of systems as we move out toward the comprehension of the meta-system. They are
invisible as long as we are only looking at systems and ignoring their meta-systemic
shadows. But in the very special circumstances, where conjunctions of the type that
manifest in hyper-complex alternating division algebras can be sustained in physical,
chemical, organic, psychological or social realms, then these special systems arise in
reality and exert a tremendous influence on the environment as we can see in our
world from the existence of life, consciousness and social formations. This is
because these special conjunctions are ultra-efficacious and as such have a
tremendous advantage over normal systems that are entropic. These are not perpetual
motion machines. Instead they are the inverse of perpetual motion machines. Those
machines attempt to circumvent entropy by conserving or creating energy. Instead,
special systems do not circumvent entropy to become ultra-efficient. Instead they
operate far from equilibrium and thus use energy but in a way that is neg-entropic
through the conservation of information, and thus order, in the face of, and in spite
of, entropy. Special systems are perpetual information producers instead of perpetual
motion or energy producers. Information flows out of nowhere to continually reorder
the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special systems and this is what allows
them to be neg-entropic locally in spite of the dominance of global entropy.
3. Dissipative Complexnion Special Systems

Conjunction of timestreams of continuity occurs at specific thresholds of
complexity that are defined algebraically. The first threshold arises when the real
numbers are conjuncted with another kind of number that we call imaginary. This is
defined by special group238 relations of intertransformability between continuous
238. Budden, F.J. [1972] The Fascination of Groups. Cambridge U.P.
121
timestreams. This algebra treats the vectors of combined real and imaginary numbers
and has all the properties of the algebra of real numbers. But the strange thing is that
there is a twist in the transformation that is much like an Escher waterfall. The Escher
waterfall is built upon the concept of the Penrose Triangle which is the sine quo non
of optical illusions in which coherent local relations are combined to form a globally
paradoxical and impossible figure. But what is impossible in three dimensions
becomes possible in four dimensions. What is not normally realized is that the
Penrose triangle is the dual of the mobius strip which offers local duality and non-
local non-duality in a concrete geometrical form. The Penrose triangle uses the non-
local discontinuities that appear in Riemann geometry to create an overall picture
that is paradoxical when expressed in three dimensions. Four dimensionality allows
the forbidden connections that make the figure impossible in three dimensions. But
this connection to globally discontinuous space allows us to see that the Penrose
Triangle represents the local/global disconnect in terms of space while the mobius
strip offers the same disconnect in the figure that inhabits the space. Thus, the
Penrose triangle and mobius strip duality fit together closely as the disconnected
global space and the lack of duality in the global nature of the figure in the space. On
the other hand, there is the local continuity of the space the figure occupies at the
same time as the figure itself embodies duality locally within itself. Both the mobius
strip and the Penrose triangle exemplify dual perspectives on a certain higher
dimensional twist that exists in nature and in mind in terms of mathematical objects.
This higher dimensional twist is exactly the form that the dissipative special system
needs to define itself. In fact, we can say that the neg-entropy within the dissipative
system is equivalent to the reversal of time in which non-intuitively things fuse back
together on a continual basis, rather than falling apart as we would normally expect
like in a film which is run backward through the images of an explosion. This only
occurs in some very special anomalous cases but when it does occur as a rare event
in special circumstances it has spectacular consequences. Witness for example the
effects of living systems239 on the planet, or consciousness or social organization of
organisms240. Dissipative systems pour order from nowhere into somewhere to
create the dissipative structures that progresses from a central singularity to an outer
boundary with the environment. The imaginary numbers define this singularity as
the square root of negative one in the number field and allow the twist that would
make it possible for order to come as if from nowhere, where it is really being filtered
through a potential trough shaped like an Escher waterfall that connects the
singularity to the boundary of the system. The disordering of the environment
outside the boundary becomes the source for the order that continually pours into the
system from nowhere. Another image of this that is less paradoxical is the mobius
strip that defines a non-dual duality. Singularity and boundary are tied together in a
non-duality that makes them globally one even though locally they appear as
239. Miller, J.G. [1978] Living Systems. N.Y. McGraw Hill,

240. Adams, R.N.[1988] The Eighth Day. Austin, University of Texas Press.
122
different. Thus the mobius strip is a topological anomaly that describes how the
singularity and the boundary of the dissipative system can be bound together even
though they appear separate to us. So the mobius strip is an image of the non-duality
inherent in the Dissipative Special System.
Dissipative structures have boundaries and interior singularities from which

ordering patterns arise that push out toward the boundaries and beyond to enlarge the
reach of the dissipative system. Dissipative systems are neg-entropic as they are self-
ordering dynamics far from equilibrium that push out disordering the environment
as they impose their own ordering as the boundary expands. In the dissipative system
there is local neg-entropy within a field that preserves entropy globally. This means
that there is a local imbalance in the global entropic field that makes it possible for a
negative entropic situation to occur. But the connection between global disordering
and local ordering forms a whole that globally maintains entropy. This relation
between global and local order can be thought of in terms of a mobius strip. The
mobius strip is globally one-sided but locally two sided. So the local two sided effect
is an illusion created by our perspective on the mobius strip at one particular point.
Similarly we can see a dissipative system as recycling order through a trough of
potentiality so that the disorder to the environment can be seen as reentering the
system as order from the singularity within the dissipative system. We notice in fact
that the ordering of these systems is preserved over time and follows certain rules.
We can model these systems with cellular automata in which the rules for the cells
that apply to all cells can be seen as the source of order from nowhere and the
apparent patterns that occur from local interactions among cells is really an illusion
of difference that flows from looking at local context. The patterning of the cellular
automata by local interactions of globally constant rules display the same dissonance
between local/global patterning that occurs in the dissipative system. So when we
describe the dissipative system we can see it as an circular flow of order that goes
out from the singularity toward the boundary and that at the boundary enters a
potential trough and is recycled back to the singularity. This ordering cycle interacts
at the boundary of the dissipative system and disorders the environment as the
boundary expands. It is as if the ordering principle bounces off the boundary and
deflects back toward the focus of the singularity. In fact, this is very similar to the
model of the way solitons are maintained in their troughs as partial waves bounce off
the walls of the trough to maintain the soliton. This interaction which accelerates the
disordering of the environment before submitting it to a new order is where the
surplus of disorder is produced that re-balances entropy equation. The boundary is
larger than the singularity in its influence so there is on balance always more disorder
produced than there is order.
The meta-systemic operation associated with the dissipative complexnionic

special system is annihilation. That appears as the breaking of continuity in the
timestream longitudinally instead of crosswise. Crosswise breaks occur after the
123
division algebras have been exhausted. We are cutting down the middle of
continuous strips instead of across them. These form mobius strips. When we cut a
mobius strip longitudinally we get two two-sided strips called lemniscates but when
we realize that they are part of a higher unity then we go to the next level of mobius
twisting which is the kleinian bottle. When you cut a kleinian bottle in half you get
two mobius strips. We posit that there is also a hyper-kleinian bottle241 which when
cut yields a two kleinian bottle which when cut yields two mobius strips that when
cut yield two lemniscates, or two-sided strips, i.e. normal continuities.
Steve Rosen posited the existence of the hyper-kleinian bottle in 1975242. In

a recent discussion with him, he said that he still did not know the form of this hyper-
kleinian bottle. Therefore, I set out to discover its form in a series of posts to the
Octonion Appreciation Society email list243. In that hyper-geometrical exploration I
eventually hit upon what I believe to be the correct form of the hyper-kleinian bottle.
It is possible to construct both the mobius strip and the kleinian bottle by taking a
figure eight shaped tube and twisting it either 360 degrees to form a mobius strip or
180 degrees to form a kleinian bottle. If instead we take a tube shaped like a four
leaved clover and apply the same twists then we would get a pair of intertwined
mobius strips sharing the same edge by twisting 360 degrees244. Or by twisting just
180 degrees the same four leaf clover shaped tube we may get a pair of intertwined
kleinian bottles sharing the same crossover circle. Of course, two intertwined mobius
strips are a kleinian bottle so the 360 degree twist with a clover leaf tube is equivalent
to a 180 degree twist of a figure eight tube. The new figure is the double kleinian
bottle sharing the same circle of ambiguity where each bottle self-intersects. This
sharing of ambiguity means that there is no way of telling if there are two kleinian
bottles or one composite hyper-kleinian figure.
It is possible to take this strange figure and map it into four dimensional space.
Since four dimensional space may be intersected by a three dimensional hyper-plane
we can see the two circles of ambiguity as generating a sphere of ambiguity in the
three dimensional hyper-plane with each kleinian bottle appearing in the ana or
kata245 four dimensional spaces either side of the hyper-plane. If we construe the ana
and kata four dimensional spaces as mirrors then we can construe the kleinian bottles
as horns of the sphere that reflect each other in the two mirrors. In this way we realize
the hyper-kleinian bottle as a three dimensional enantiomorphic rotation which is the
hallmark of the next higher twist beyond the kleinian bottle. The sphere of ambiguity
might be seen as traced out by the two independent circles of the hyper-sphere (xy)
241. This speculation is unverified.
242. Rosen, S. [1994] Science, Paradox, and the Moebius Principle. SUNY See page 11.
243. octonion@dialog.net. See http://dialog.net:90/octonions/
244. This is the image of the pentahedron in four dimensional space.
245. Rucker, R The Fourth Dimension op.cit.
124
(zw). So there is an intimate connection between the hyper-sphere and the hyper-
kleinian bottle. The volume of the hyper-sphere is the same as that of the torus. This
is because the torus is a fusion of two independent circles. The difference is that in
the sphere of ambiguity we do not know the mutual orientation of the two circles of
ambiguity from each kleinian bottle that is part of the hyper-kleinian bottle. They
may as in our first example coincide. Or they may retain the same center but freely
rotate in three dimensions, thus forming a sphere of ambiguity which is localized
incoherence or paradoxicality. Or in four dimensional space they may form a hyper-
sphere. If they form a hyper-sphere then the two kleinian bottles are contained within
it as the tracings of the two independent circles that map out the two self-intersecting
kleinian bottles as subsets of all the possible circles within the hyper-sphere. From
this we can see that the twin kleinian bottles are embedded in a hyper-sphere and
intersect either at the same sphere of ambiguity or at the same circle of ambiguity. A
kleinian bottle is produced by twisting a torus through itself. The two kleinian bottles
thus represent the two mirrored twisted toruses that mirror each other in ana and kata
four dimensional spaces either side of the hyper-plane that contains the sphere of
ambiguity. One independent circle from the hyper-sphere traces out one twisted
torus while the other independent circle from the hyper-sphere traces out the other
twisted torus. These are two images of the same torus enantiomorphically reflected
in the facing mirrors of the hyper-space. The surface of the intersection of the two
reflections is the three dimensional hyper-plane that separates the two mirrors.
Once we know the form of the hyper-kleinian bottle it is possible to

understand the series of anomalous topological surfaces that provide an emergent
series of non-dual, yet simultaneously dual246, models. This was recognized earlier
by Steve Rosen who has explored the implications of these non-dual models and
related to Merleau-Ponty’s concept of Flesh. However, we differ in the fact that he
emphasizes the paradoxicality of these figures while I wish to point out the insights
they give us into super-rationality. Our two points of view are harmonized by the
realization that what Rosen refers to as the lemniscate, which appears as a two sided
ring when a mobius strip is split down the middle, may be seen not just as a
distinction but as a non-nihilistic distinction. Non-nihilistic distinctions are supra-
rational rather than merely rational. They are the kinds of distinctions such as that
between enlightenment and non-enlightenment which are clear and distinct but
eluctable, i.e. not comprehensible by rational discourse, like the non-concept non-
experience of emptiness (sunyata) in Buddhism or the void in Taoism. If we take the
simple lemniscate to be not an ordinary distinction247 like those that Spencer-Brown
talks about, but a supra-rational non-nihilistic one, then we can see the series of non-
dual topological surfaces as falling away from the supra-rational distinction by
stages toward the paradoxicality produced by the sphere of ambiguity at the level of
246. Steve Rosen makes this point.

247. Zerybavel, E. [1991] The Fine Line. The Free Press.
125
the hyper-kleinian bottle. Between the pure non-nihilistic supra-rational distinction

and the sphere of pure paradoxicality are two steps through phases of non-dual
duality modeled precisely by the mobius strip and the kleinian bottle. As Rosen
points out it is the middle gap in this series between the mobius strip and the kleinian
bottle that has some interesting and strange properties. Once we recognize that the
series of lemniscate => mobius strip => kleinian bottle => hyper-kleinian bottle is a
set of stages taking us from the supra-rational to the paradoxical, and back again, via
emergent stages where new properties are introduced at each stage, then we have a
key to the unfolding of paradoxicality into non-nihilistic distinctions or the
devolution of the supra-rational into paradox. These two conditions form the limits
of reason. On the one side reason fails when it encounters paradox because it
becomes utterly confused as distinctions fuse together. On the other hand, reason
cannot understand supra-rational koans (Zen Buddhist sayings such as “what is the
sound of one hand clapping?”) that allow for opposite propositions to be affirmed
simultaneously without mutual interference. Paradoxicality is a result of the
breakdown of the principle of excluded middle while supra-rationality is a product
of the kind of thought which never allowed the possibility of excluding the middle
to arise in the first place. This kind of thought is called by Loy NonDual which is
prior to the arising of dualities and has the fundamental form enunciated by
Nagrajuna. Buddhist logic extends traditional Indian logic which includes the middle
by going beyond it to define emptiness. Indian Logic accepts statements of the form
both...and... as well as neither...nor... in addition to affirmation and denial.
Nagarjuna goes beyond these statements to define emptiness as “the difference that
makes a difference248” between both...and... and neither...nor.... Emptiness is non-
dual, supra-rational and is a non-nihilistic distinction. Aristotle explicitly denies the
four propositions of Indian Logic in his positing of excluded middle as the highest
principle of metaphysics. Consequently there is no possibility of recognizing the
supra-rational which Nagarjuna indicates. Therefore, there is little in our tradition
which allows us to appreciate the importance of supra-rationality. But when we look
at Zen Buddhism, Chinese Taoism, and Islamic Sufism we get a taste of the kind of
thought which is rooted in supra-rationality. A supra-rational distinction is by
definition non-dual and thus beyond or prior to the arising of nihilistic opposites. In
such a distinction opposites are allowed to be simultaneously true as both...and...
while at the same time being neither...nor.... These two conditions are
simultaneously true without interfering or contradicting each other. This state is
called non-affirmation of the antinomies by the Buddha. He refused to speak of them
and thus indicated the emptiness of both antinomies. When we fall out of this state
of silence the first thing we encounter is the mobius strip which is locally dual and
globally non-dual. From there we devolve further into the kleinian bottle formation
where the distinction itself vanishes and the circle of ambiguity at the point of self-
intersection appears. Finally we devolve to the hyper-kleinian bottle which is utterly
248. See Bateson, G. Steps to the Ecology of the Mind op.cit.
126
ambiguous due to the fact that the circles of ambiguity of both bottles coincide so it
is impossible to tell if there is one figure or two. This ambiguity is an image of pure
paradoxicality. When we lose all reference to a frame for the sphere of ambiguity and
we fall into it like a blackhole then we reach the ultimate extreme of ambiguity called
absurdity. That is like the progression up higher and higher levels of hyper-kleinian
formations indefinitely.
We can align the steps of the super-rational/paradoxical series into a ladder

isomorphic to that of the reflexive autopoietic special systems theory.
Figure 35:
systems theory topological surfaces paradoxical images
Meta-system lemniscate supra-rational

reflexive special system mobius strip tesseract
autopoietic special system kleinian bottle nekker cube
dissipative special system hyper-kleinian bottle escher waterfall
or penrose triangle
system sphere of ambiguity paradoxical
This mapping is precisely the opposite of what we might expect. That fact
causes us to suspect that the supra-rational/paradoxical series is telling us something
different from the series of special systems. What it is telling us seems to be that a
function of a pair of autopoietic systems in a reflexive milieu is the continual re-
establishment of their own boundaries. This distinguishing of boundaries is supra-
rational because the boundaries of an autopoietic system is a balancing of two
dynamic boundaries of symbiotic dissipative structures. In those two orders are
expanding in relation to each other such that they establish equal pressure and thus a
stable autopoietic boundary maintained homeostatically. The balancing of
dissipations of orderly structures against each other may be clearly two sided like the
lemniscate. But more likely the autopoietic systems will have difficulty keeping the
two dissipative structures perfectly balanced so the distinction will devolve by a
series of steps into paradoxicality. Autopoietic theory itself is an image of this
ultimate paradoxicality. The autopoietic system may be likened to the sphere of
ambiguity because it is simultaneously open and closed. It is closed to external
observations, yet open to perturbations. This simultaneous openness and closure
which has been previously called “cloture” can be seen as either supra-rational or
paradoxical depending on one’s disposition. We may distinguish completely the
singularity and boundary of the dissipative structure or we may recognize that they
are related non-dually. What is completely separable and non-dual at the same time
127
is supra-rational. When we fall out of the supra-rational non-nihilistic distinction

between the singularity and the boundary we encounter the mobius strip which is
locally dual but globally non-dual. The escher water fall is the dual of the mobius
strip. It is locally coherent but globally incoherent. The reflexive special system has
the nature of the mobius strip while the dissipative special system has the nature of
the escher waterfall/penrose triangle. The penrose triangle is one in a series of
paradoxical shapes which includes the nekker cube249 and the four dimensional cube
(tesseract). We relate the tesseract to the reflexive special system and the nekker
cube to the autopoietic special system. These paradoxical figures cannot exist in
three dimensional space. They are the duals of the non-dual topological surfaces
which do exist in three dimensional space. They form an inverse hierarchy to the
topological hierarchy. By looking at the duals at each level we can get a better idea
of the underlying patterning of the hierarchy of special systems. Where the esher
waterfall/penrose triangle configuration models the dissipative system externally the
hyper-kleinian bottle models it internally. Where the nekker cube models the
autopoietic special system externally the kleinian bottle models it internally. Where
the tesseract models the reflexive special system externally the mobius strip models
it internally.
The dissipative special system cycles information instead of energy like the
escher waterfall. The perpetual motion machine is the dual of the dissipative
structural system. Pretending to cycle energy in a way that folds back on itself.
Energy recycling is impossible due to entropy, but in very far from equilibrium
systems recycling of information actually occurs in nature which we call negative
entropy. Negative entropy can be seen as the influx of order from nowhere via the
singularity and its dissipation out toward the boundary with the environment. If the
environment is itself dissipating order then we suddenly have the mutual dissipation
of order from two singularities forming a common border where they are each
disordering the other. Such a boundary may become static and if it then becomes
homeostatically maintained an autopoietic system suddenly pops into existence.
Each autopoietic system can be modeled topologically as a kleinian bottle which
expresses its strange openly closed character. The self-intersection of the kleinian
bottle stands in for self-production of the autopoietic system. The boundary of the
autopoietic system can be seen as similar to that of the kleinian bottle which is the
same one-sided surface on both the inside and the outside. Thus, the autopoietic
system has one surface for its boundary which is both inside and outside at the same
time. If we see this surface in motion then we would see it involuting and passing
through itself. The involution of the kleinian bottle is analogous to the act of self
production while the static self-interference is analogous to the self-identity or
sameness over time. When we look at the dissipative system we see that all the
249. Dobbs, H.A.C. [1972] “Dimensions of the Sensible Present” pp. 274-292 in Fraser, J.T. and Harber, F.C. The Study of Time.
N.Y. Springer Verlag.
128
conditions of the production of the autopoietic system are present which manifest
when the dissipative systems are conjuncted. This presentiment is symbolized by the
relation of the dissipative to the hyper-kleinian bottle. The hyper-kleinian bottle
represents the implicit potential structure of reflexivity which appears even at the
dissipative level. The oneness of the boundary (event horizon) and singularity as in
the black hole is encapsulated in the structure of the hyper-kleinian bottle. This
oneness produces the sphere of ambiguity of the singularity embedded within the
boundary of the dissipative system. Information cycles through the physical
structure and the backflow occurs in a potential trough which is not visible in the
physical flow. The relation between the visible and invisible flows are in the position
of the twin symbiotic kleinian bottles. Each flow is independent but when conjuncted
they produce neg-entropic dissipation of order which is a strange phenomena. The
boundary of the dissipative system physically is counter balanced by a four
dimensional boundary which is invisible and these two boundaries together are fused
together into one figure which is visible and invisible at the same time. The
singularity and physical boundary are the points of contact between these two flows
making a single circuit. This seemingly impossible circuit exemplifies
paradoxicality in the fact that the singularity and boundary are separate physically
but are the same from the viewpoint of logos. Here in the dissipative system the split
between physus and logos becomes compromised and paradoxical as they are seen
to intertransform before our eyes. The logos appears as ordering from nowhere
which effects the physus and then evaporates again at the boundary. It is only when
we look harder we see the circuit back to logos which reconnects to the manifestation
of order again at the singularity. Logos and physus produce a single paradoxical
cycle in the dissipative special system. We see this as an escher waterfall of ordering
information externally but internally we see it as the potential for reflexivity
manifesting in the production of paradoxicality in the interaction of physus and
logos. Note that what is manifest in this interaction is nomos or order. So the non-
dual beyond or prior to the physus /logos split is what appears in the dissipative
system’s involution where the kleinian bottle of physus intersects with the kleinian
bottle of logos. So as we move up the hierarchy from dissipation toward reflexivity
we are moving from paradoxicality toward increased supra-rationality and the
potential of the hyper-kleinian bottle which is there from the beginning as the
interference between logos and physus that reveals nomos successively unfolds. This
is contrary to expectations. The direct external comparison of the hyper-kleinian
bottle to the reflexive is more obvious and natural. But this does not explain the
relation of supra-rationality to paradoxicality. As we move toward the meta-system
we are moving toward supra-rationality. This can only be accommodated if we
identify the lemniscate with the meta-system. This means that the dissipative system
must be related to the hyper-kleinian bottle formation which makes little sense until
we realize that it is a model for the intersection of logos and physus that occurs at the
dissipative level. Then when we see that the hyper-kleinian bottle is the potential of
reflexivity manifesting at the dissipative level then it is clear that the reversal
129
between these two series is what ties them together and gives them over all unity.
When we look to the other end of the spectrum we see how at the reflexive
level there is an inward relation to the mobius strip and an outward relation to the
tesseract. Notice that the inward is being simpler and the outward more complex.
What we notice is that as we move from penrose triangle to nekker cube we are
trapped in two dimensionality. But suddenly at the level of the tesseract we have
spilled over into four dimensionality skipping the third dimension. Thus in terms of
outward appearances we have suddenly moved from a flat projection of paradoxical
images to a full blown four dimensionality of images which is an example of
overflowing and ecstasy we would expect at the reflexive level. So isn’t it amazing
that our model so precisely mirrors the overflowing of paradoxciality of images as
the expansion from two dimensional paradoxical figures to the fourth dimension
which is equally difficult to capture in the third dimension as the nekker cube and the
penrose triangle. Internally we see the mobius strip as the potential for connecting
autopoietic systems within the reflexive milieu. Thus simple local duality and global
non-duality is in effect at the reflexive level where two autopoietic systems are made
one by conjunction in the reflexive field while each are still isolatable and separate
at the same time. The full force of reflexivity we saw in potential at the dissipative
level is now fully manifest externally in the structure of the reflexive field.
Externally the two kleinian bottles which represent autopoietic systems are
producing as their mutual self interference the reflexive field, but internally this
paradoxicality is mirrored by a much simpler non-duality of the mobius strip.
Beyond the apparent paradoxicality within the field is an actual non-duality which
unites the two autopoietic systems. Each of them are made up of two intertwined
mobius strips so that their shared reality is the mobius strip. It is this shared reality
that allows them to unite essentially as the image of non-duality which becomes fully
manifest in the meta-system. So think of it this way: The potential of the hyper-
kleinian that appears in the dissipative becomes fully manifest externally as the
reflexive field. As this occurs we find internally a reduction to the mobius strip as the
essential shared reality of the autopoietic systems encompassed by that field. The
autopoietic systems are essentially non-dual in themselves and in relation to each
other despite the paradoxicality that proliferates externally in the reflexive field
itself. The autopoietic systems themselves enter an ecstatic overflowing at the
reflexive level which we can see as the move from two dimensional paradoxical
images to the coherence of four dimensional forms. These forms are no less
paradoxical than the nekker cube and the penrose triangle in terms of their images
that appear in two and three dimensional space. But the coherence of these forms in
the fourth dimension shows us the ordering of the synergies of the nomos. These spill
out in ecstasy from the two autopoietic systems locked in symbiosis. Logos becomes
purified and manifests as this outpouring.
So here we see that by recognizing the inversion between the two images from
130
topology and algebra we discover a much deeper model of the special systems. The
non-inverse identification is also possible but it does not bring into account the
paradoxical images which we have seen model the outpouring of ecstatic order into
the reflexive environment. All this shows us how deep the model of the dissipative
can be. The entire series is implicit in the definition of the dissipative special system.
It seems simple but the more we look into it the more we see the implicit
reflexiveness which will unfold through the series of hyper-complex algebraic
stages.
We can move on from here to define the dissipative special systems as “openly
closed” in relation to its environment. It is open to energy which drives it far from
thermodynamic equilibrium, but closed to information which circulates impossibly
from nowhere into the system. This order production radiates from the singularity
out towards the boundary where the system expands disordering the environment,
creating more disorder in the environment than order in the system. And the
transformation of order of the system into disorder for the environment causes the
dimensional transgression which allows the information to loop back around re-
entering the singularity. Think of this loop as a kind of regulation mechanism that
continues a certain load of order production because it encounters no resistance in
disordering the environment. If the environment does resist then it would shift to a
new kind of order revealing something of the implicate order (cf. Bohm) behind the
order production of the dissipative system. Extending the paradox even further we
realize that the information driving the dissipative system is infinite and is revealed
to us as a strange attractor if we look at the phase space of the system. So although
the information loop is closed due to the strange attractor formation there is infinite
information traveling around that loop so that this feedback loop is strangely open.
Also, the system that is open to energy is actively producing its own spatiotemporal
boundary creating a closure which is finite. Thus, the dissipative special system
embodies paradox which we see as neg-entropic propagation of order in spite of the
predominance of entropy in special cases of non-linear thermodynamics as described
by Prigogine250. We note that there have been a continual history of attempts to
produce perpetual motion machines which try to realize the escher waterfall
formation as a functional physical system. This is not possible in three dimensional
space, but is possible in four dimensional space. We live in four dimensional space,
so it follows that perpetual motion is only possible in an evolving system, i.e. one in
which time is dynamically unfolding. This dynamic unfolding is seen as an influx of
information into a three dimensional system. The second and third laws of
thermodynamics deny that possibility with respect to energy. Perpetual motion
machines set over the dichotomy between dynamic reversal and irreversible
thermodynamic systems as a paradoxical formation which would seek to connect
250. Prigogine, I. [1984] Order Out of Chaos: man's new dialogue with nature. with Isabelle Stengers Toronto; New York, N.Y.:
Bantam Books.
131
them in such a way as to produce energy or at least maintain the energetically non-
entropic system without energy inputs. But this is an impossible paradox to sustain
physically. The closest we can get physically is the soliton formation which is super-
efficient not ultra-efficient. Super-efficiency gives unexpectedly high persistence
without complete permanence to the isolated dissipative system. Ultra-efficiency
only arises at the autopoietic level. However, where we cannot achieve energy
closure or energy production it is possible to achieve information closure and
production. Thus, the perpetual motion machine is the dual inverse of the dissipative
special system. What the perpetual motion machine fails to produce in terms of
energy is exactly what the dissipative system succeeds in producing from the point
of view of information. We note following Stonier251 that information and energy
are intertwined such that potential energy is really situational information, so that
physical systems are continuously transforming energy into information and vice
versa as they produce and then use potential energy. A dissipative system merely
produces a loop in this potential trough such that the energy converted into
information is returned from the boundary of the dissipative system to be
reconverted into ordered energy (information encoded energy) that radiates from the
singularity appearing from nowhere at the center of the system. The loop through the
potential space of the recycled information creates a surplus of ordering and
maintains the influx of order in the dissipative system within its boundary as that
boundary expands.
We can understand this potential loop by considering again the duality

between the penrose triangle and the mobius strip. The former allows us to compare
global incoherence to local coherence whereas the latter allows us to compare global
non-duality to local duality. The paradoxicality of the dissipative system may be
expressed as the conjunction between these two local/global distinctions which are
construed together to create a single paradoxical meta-formation. What is surprising
is that it is possible to create embodiments of this paradoxical formation unlike its
perpetual motion dual. In other words, there are potential troughs that can be made
reentrant for information whereas this is apparently impossible for energy. Thus, to
create an infinite information machine is possible by intertransformation between
energy and information and using strange attractors as the information generators.
But this can only occur locally while global entropy is maintained in the total energy
economy. The point where information disappears at the boundary of the dissipative
system is directly connected to the singularity where it re-appears at the center of the
system. At that point we enter an actively contradictory state which is at once
globally non-dual and globally incoherent. This dissipative system itself embodies
local dual distinctions and local coherence. Inside the finite dissipative system is
entirely locally coherent. The dualistic distinction of relevance is between the
251. Stonier, T. [1990] Information and the Internal Structure of the Universe. An Exploration into information physics. Springer
Verlag, London.
132
singularity and the boundary that encloses that local distinguishability and
coherence. It is the global non-duality and non-coherence of this system that allows
it to manifest its startling properties of neg-entropic order production that violates
our thermodynamic expectations. The coincidence of global non-duality like that
which appears in the mobius strip and global non-coherence like that which appears
in the penrose triangle make the dissipative special system formation especially
incomprehensible. In other words, we get a property we want which is global non-
duality at the cost of global incoherence. The mobius strip is a finite formation that
is possible in three dimensional space. We see that the Penrose triangle has the same
structure as Riemann spacetime which also has global non-Euclidean properties
combined with local Euclidean properties. Note that spacetime is the ultimate meta-
system and as such it has both global incoherence and non-duality in that without
something inhabiting space there is no distinctions between places or times. This
analogy with the meta-system extends to the micro-quantum level where we see
spacetime as a soup of virtual particle pairs that are continually created and
destroyed. These virtual particles also display the operations of the Emergent Meta-
System as has been mentioned previously. Thus whether looked at relativisticly or
through the lens of quantum mechanics spacetime has inherently the nature of the
meta-system252.
So when we put these two formations together we get a meta-formation that

uses global incoherence from four dimensional space to wrap back around creating
a closed loop through the potential space that stands outside physical spacetime.
Local distinctions that are dual collapse into non-dual modes as it passes through the
incoherent discontinuities in the global spacetime. The fact that this occurs in
spacetime means that the dissipative system must be a dynamic irreversible process
in order to accomplish its strange feat of neg-entropy production. When we combine
the penrose triangle and mobius strip duals the combined structure is an image of the
kosmic monad.
The arising of a nexus of non-dual non-coherence is precisely our entry point

into the meta-systemic. Each successive special system takes us further toward the
utter incompleteness and inconsistency, as well as incoherence, of the meta-systemic
background of all systems. In meta-systems we have nexuses of complementarities
whose existence forces us to an anti-epistemological stance that is advocated by
Arcady Plotnitsky in his study of Bohr, Derrida and Bataille called
Complementarities253. It also forces us into a similarly anti-ontological stance that
leads to positing of emptiness (sunyata) over against any type of Being. Each special
252. We see this too in the difference between the view of the Matrix as either spacetime (x+y+z-it) or timespace (past-present-
future+nowhere, the Minkowski view). The Matrix refers to what lies beyond these complementary views that is not ac-
cessible to observation.
253. op.cit.
133
system can be seen as a partial meta-system. We are building up from a nexus of

complementarities step by step. In the autopoietic special system we get a balance
between non-dual non-coherence toward a nexus of complementarities step by step.
In the autopoietic special system we get a balance between non-dual non-coherent
dissipative formations and then finally in the reflexive special system we get a
minimal system of non-dual non-coherent nexuses. The reflective special system is
a nucleated systemic formation analogous to the Vector Equilibrium254 of B. Fuller
defined in Synergetics I & II255. So the minimal system of non-dual non-coherent
nexuses is directly related to the close packing of spheres around a nuclear sphere.
Working backward we can see that the pair of non-dual non-coherent nexuses is
related to the tetrahedral minimal system and the dissipative system with a single
non-dual non-coherent nexus is related to the triangle. That triangle may be
construed as the Penrose triangle or as a mobius strip in which each corner is a twist.
We build up the tetrahedron from triangles. The interaction of the tetrahedral
minimal systems can be expressed by the fusion into octahedron or the
interpenetration into cubes. With the cube the square appears. Cubes and squares
together produce the vector equilibrium structure. As Onar Aam256 has shown the
associative properties of the Octonion are related to the vector equilibrium and the
associative properties of the quaternion are related to the triangle. The vector
equilibrium is the chiasmic non-dual balance point between octahedron and cube. Its
associativity comes from the interaction of the triangle and square that appears in the
octonion as relations between imaginaries. But prior to the interaction of tetrahedra
that gives rise to the square there is only the interaction of triangles that form the
tetrahedron. We can see the tetrahedron as the set of rotations of the triangle
producing a symmetry space. We can see the Vector Equilibrium as a set of rotations
of a triangle and square that introduces a higher order symmetry space. When we
look at these symmetry spaces we see that they have an inner structure of quaternion
and octonion algebras. Higher algebras like the Sedenion have islands of
associativity within an overall non-associative algebraic formation like the jewels in
Indra’s Net of Interpenetration. When commutativity, associativity, and division
properties disappear we have full global non-coherence of the meta-system. It is
precisely at that point we also enter into full non-duality of the anti-epistemological
and anti-ontological emptiness (void) which expresses a universal interpenetration.
Between the arising of the nexus of non-dual non-coherence in the dissipative system
and the full fledged interpenetration of the Sedenion and higher order non-
associative non-division algebras produced in the Cayley-Dickson process there are
two more states where partial meta-systems arise as thresholds of complexity of a
very peculiar kind of defining anomalous and strange special systems that
spontaneously arise between systems and meta-systems.
254. An Archimedean polytope made up of points of the closest packing of spheres with squares and triangles for faces.
255. op.cit.
256. Onar Aam, a member of the octonion appreciation society. (onar@hsr.no)
134
At the dissipative level there is a chiasmic fusion of pattern and form. We have
seen that Spencer-Browns Laws of Form may be used to define a calculus of Form
through a particular combination of the aspects of form (something, nothing,
layering, and multiplicity). These laws of form have a dual which may be called the
“laws of pattern” which assumes the opposite axioms.
Figure 36: Laws of Pattern
()()= “nothing”
(()) = ()
The laws of pattern emphasize or reward layering instead of multiplicity.

Multiplicity emphasizes outward differentiation whereas layering emphasizes
inward differentiation. Content is the inward differentiation of a form and the
ordering of that content represents a patterning. The calculus of pattern is eschewed
by mathematicians because it is considered more shallow than a formal calculus that
represents dualistic transcendence over content. In fact, only Grenander257 has
developed a mathematical exposition of Pattern. Patterns can easily break the rules
of isomorphism and homeomorphism that mathematics cherishes. Patterns can be
realized as the subtle sets of overlappings of the shadows of forms and no
mathematics of overlappings exists. We posit that such a mathematics could be
thought of as a fuzzified category theory258. Such a conception has allowed the
definition of anti-categories such as the annihilation mosaics259. Emergent Meta-
systems can be modeled as annihilation mosaics. In the annihilation mosaic there is
a set of eventities and anti-eventities that annihilate each other continuously like
particles and anti-particles in the soup of virtual particles that serve as the field for
conserved particles. Each annihilation can produce a set of side-effects such as other
particles which may produce annihilation cascades that in turn may form loops.
These loops in annihilation mosaics account for the persistence of things in the face
of constant annihilation. We may postulate that what the forms contain as contents
is precisely these annihilation mosaics that allow us to see pattern rather than form.
Pattern has four kinds associated with process, structure, value and sign.
Process and Structure have been defined by Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem
Solving. He calls process the production of an infinite series of meta-models while
structure comes from an equally infinite series of meta-structures. These two series
produce the horns of his epistemological hierarchy. Sign and value have been
defined by Baudrillard in Critique of the Economy of the Sign which shows how
signs function also as commodities in a market so each social artifact has both sign
257. Grenander, U. [1976, 1978, 1981] Pattern Synthesis Volumes 1, 2, & 3. Springer Verlag, New York.
258. See “Deep Mathematics and Meta-systems Theory” by the author.
259. Palmer, K Steps to the Threshold of the Social series of essays in Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory op.cit.
135
and value at the same time. When we recognize that all four of these aspects are
different ways of looking at pattern then we realize that this patterning fourfold
(value, sign, process and structure) underlies the fourfold aspects of form
(something, nothing, layering and multiplicity). Something is a formal mark which
may be present or absent. When it is absent it leaves a hole. This is different from the
imaginary anti-mark. We only see emptiness in the mutual annihilation of mark and
anti-mark not as Spencer-Brown says in the relation between mark and the blank
background on which it is written. Something may participate in layering
(distinguishing inward from outward) and multiplicity (distinguishing multiple
possible external places). But nothing also may be articulated by layering and
multiplicity which produces the ramified hierarchy of meta-levels (or higher logical
types). But this formalism may also be seen to contain content by giving the marks
diacritical marks (rather than surreal content). The diacriticals may indicate process
(meat-models), structure, signs (reference) or value. This diacritical level is
produced directly out of the kinds of Being acting at the level of pure content. Pure
content is itself never seen as Husserl says of “hyle” which is formed by the
“intentional morphe.” So we can see hyle as a kind of pre-entity. Butchvarov
discusses these kinds of pre-entity associated with material identity and reality. If we
extend his analysis we find that each kind of pattern is a particular kind of pre-entity
associated with a particular aspect of Being.
Figure 37:
identity structure reduction

reality value exclusion
presence process concatenation
truth sign reference
Identity, reality, presence, and truth by their combination at the formal level
produce six properties:
Figure 38:
coherence
consistency
clarity (well-formedness)
validation
verification
coherence
136
While at the level of pattern they produce the kinds of content which forms
may contain, these form hierarchies of meta-levels and intertwine chiasmicly as
process and structure do in Klir’s epistemological hierarchy. Pre-entities of content
never appear outside of the context of forms. But we still approach them through
phenomenology, hermeneutics, dialectics, and structuralism.
Figure 39: Humanistic Scientific Approahes
Phenomenology approaches value content as essence

Dialectics approaches process content as transformations (meta-essence)
Structuralism approaches structure content as opposites
Hermeneutics approaches sign content as meaning
In this manner we deepen our appreciation of the nature of patterning. This

allows us to understand how annihilation mosaics can produce side-effects. This is
due to the four dimensional nature of hyle. Processes unfold through the meta-
changes of structures260. Structures are made up of binary oppositions. Thus pre-
entities can cancel each other out if they are opposite types. But cancellation that
occurs at discontinuities in a process may produce either side-effects in the realm of
signification or value. For instance, in a general economy destruction of objects may
produce a transcendental value or some sort of significance.
In annihilation two somethings yield nothing so that multiplicity is constantly

collapsing. But, instead of the multiplicities this process produces layering. The
layering piles up within the form as overlapping shadows that continuously reduces
to just the form itself. So patterns of overlapping elements create forms that in turn
annihilate. The “laws of pattern” would merely vanish if it were not for the fact that
annihilations can produce side-effects that cascade and can create loops. It is these
loops that form stable dynamical structures similar to the stable static structures of
forms. The pair of static stable and dynamic stable structures together form a gestalt
that can be construed as a system. In fact, we recognize this as a temporal gestalt in
which forms produced by the buildup of layered patterns and forms together produce
multiplicities that may be manipulated by the laws of form calculus. From a
notational viewpoint we can distinguish between laws of pattern and laws of form
axioms by introducing brackets around laws of pattern expressions:
(()()(()))(){()(()())((())())}(((()(())))()). But this contrast between pattern and form does not
complete the story because the laws of pattern merely defines the dynamics of
overlapping and annihilation. Still we must consider the nature of the content itself.
We have already seen that it is necessary to posit that the forms contain a
representation of field propensities in order for our model to be complete from the
point of view of the four kinds of Being. We represent these field propensities via
Surreal Numbers. Surreal numbers may represent either quality or quantity. They
260. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H. and Fisch, R. [1974] Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. N.Y.
W.W. Norton.
137
represent quantity in the way that Conway261 and Knuth262 have defined by
progressive bisection that generates all real numbers plus all ranks of infinite
numbers and infinitesimals from a single symmetry breaking operation. By
producing bifurcations of up and down markers at various ordinal levels all possible
numbers are produced as well as some holes or anti-numbers which prevent us from
integrating under the surreal numbers. Thus, the surreal numbers naturally form a
broken semi-continuity. When numbers define sets of entities and we interpenetrate
these entities, then we get the possible qualitative states of a system. In this we move
from n2 to 2n that numerically defines the relation between quantity and quality for
a given system of elements. If we take any set of components, the Lano N2
diagram263 defines the static relations between these components that appears in a
gestalt pattern formation that glosses over all the components. But then there is also
the mutual action of the components with each other that we only see in their
interaction in which they form a dynamical system, or a moving gestalt. These
interactions give rise to systemic qualities. These qualities are expressed as the
tension between foreground figure component and the rest of the components forced
into the background in a particular gestalt view of the dynamical system. The tension
between one component and the rest has an affinity with the relation between the
interpenetrations of the components within the overall system. The possible
interpenetrations are 2n where n is a set of distinctions that can be hierarchically
combined to produce a set of possible states. The dynamic system has a normal
trajectory through this state space. But all possible qualitative trajectories are
represented within the state space. The interpenetration of the different kinds of
things in the initial set can be seen as the dual of the set of possible qualities of those
things interacting dynamically. Each combination of ups and downs may represent,
besides numbers, instead a particular qualitative permutation of possible distinctions
that make a difference for that system and thus define the possible system states.
Thus surreal numbers may define either the quantity or quality using the same
notation. When we realize that propensities are exactly half way between qualitative
possibilities and quantitative probabilities then we see that it is reasonable for the
surreal numbers within the forms to represent moments of the field of propensities
thus: ( \/ /\ /\ /\ \/ ) { ( /\ \/ ) } (( /\ /\ \/ /\ /\ ) /\ /\ \/ ). Now what is amazing is that the
surreal numbers with their infinities and infinitesimals and holes are a perfect model
for the meta-systemic field. In that field there is the representation of the primary
complementarity between up and down arrows. That field contains blackholes and
miracles of decreasing and increasing positive feedback represented by the infinities
and infinitesimals. But the field also contains holes or gaps in continuity similar to
261. Conway, J. On Numbers and Games. op.cit.

262. Knuth, D. Surreal Numbers. op.cit.
263. Lano, R.J. [1979] A technique for software and systems design. New York: North-Holland Pub. Co. and Elsevier North-Hol-
land Pub. Co.
138
those that the division and non-division algebras introduce. If we take the infinities
or infinitesimals and randomly connect those bumps on the surreal surface OR we
take the holes and randomly connect them we get a multiply connected surreal
surface. That surface represents the true nature of the global economy of the meta-
system. If we think of that surface as involuting then each hole takes in the entire
surface and then reproduces it again from inside itself. This is the essential vision that
Ben Goertzel had in mind when he produced the ‘Magician’ SGS model of the meta-
system264. Every toroidal hole is taking in and projecting the whole surface
connecting all the toroidal holes. When we put this together with Donaldson’s
discovery that there is a possibly infinite number of fake four dimensional topologies
we see that the multiply connected surface is a four dimensional Swiss cheese
structure with infinite mappings between holes and holes or infinities and
infinitesimals within a surreal four dimensional manifold.
However, if we think instead of connecting holes and infinities we get a

completely different kind of structural formation, as has already been noted, that is
analogous to the dissipative formation. Suddenly we see that this cross-wise
connection between infinities (or infinitesimals) and holes gives us the possibility of
infinite information appearing form nowhere within the multiply connected surface.
The stream of infinite transcendental digits would appear out of a hole in the
continuum as a set of random fluctuations. But infinite irrational numbers would
appear as cyclical order that arises from nowhere. Either way infinite numbers
connected to holes in the continuum is a precise model of the dissipative system that
naturally arises within the context of surreal numbers captured by the laws of form
equations. Those equations allow us to manipulate the field of propensities and even
convolute the field of tendencies represented by the four-dimensional “Swiss cheese
surreal” surface. Each hole represents an Emergent Meta-System component within
the swarm of holes. Each hole is involuting the entire surface producing the whole
out of all its parts. This gives us a dynamic model of interpenetration. And we realize
that it is the conjunction of holes which produces the various models of special
autopoietic and reflexive systems as well as meta-systemic higher order formations.
All the holes taken together are the swarm. Within the swarm there are islands of
associativity and smaller islands of commutativity. But the swarm as a whole as a
meta-system is incoherent and non-dual to the extent that it represents a model of
interpenetration. Things in the swarm are literally empty as they are actually holes
mapped to either increasing or decreasing infinities from elsewhere on the same
surface through which order flows into the surface itself. We can see that the laws of
form/pattern equations may be taken as the means of producing the mapping
between points on the surface. So in this way it is possible to see the combination of
the laws of form/pattern and surreal surfaces as a complete picture of the meta-
systemic formation with its special subsets. This is because once we have a picture
264. Goertzel, B. Chaotic Logic op.cit.
139
of how dissipation arises from out of the quality/quantity non-dual substrate of the
field then by conjunction of dissipative structures we can build autopoietic and
reflexive special systems. Autopoietic special systems appear as homeostatic and
symbiotic pairs of dissipative systems whereas reflexive special systems appear as
minimal systems of these dissipative structures held in conjunction.
4. Autopoietic Quaternionic Systems

When we move to the quaternion threshold of algebraic complexity we enter
the realm of multi-level conjunction. A quaternion is a conjunction of two real-
imaginary vectors. It is at the same time a pair of dissipative systems and a whole
new emergent special system that is analogous to the autopoietic system. The
emergence of the level of the autopoietic as opposed to the dissipative is seen in the
symmetry breaking of the quaternion which opposes one real to three imaginaries
instead of the two imaginaries as balanced vectors. In the autopoietic system two
dissipative systems combine to form a self regulating hyper-cycle. That is to say that
the disordering of the environment by one is the ordering of the other and vice versa.
This occurs at the quaternion level of complexity that embodies four dimensional
rotation. That is the kind of rotation that allows perpetual motion in four dimensional
space. Since our spacetime is four dimensional apparent perpetual motion is possible
in very rare instances such as in the phenomena of superconductivity. The
autopoietic system maintains its organization homeostatically by the feed back
between symbiotic dissipative systems locked into an embrace where they feed off
of each other and do not need to interact with anything outside themselves.
At this level one of the important algebraic properties is lost: commutative

property. The loss of this algebraic property gives rise to mutual irreversible action
and thus behavior in general. Basically this means that an action between nodes in
an autopoietic network may take many actions to be reversed and perhaps cannot be
reversed due to asymmetries in action. This irreversibility in actions makes mutual
action visible within the network of autopoietic nodes. It also makes time appear as
the asymmetries of action complexes. So we say that the meta-systemic operation at
this level is mutual action. These are actions that may have side-effects or
supplements that cannot be reduced to the original action. In other words the many
actions it takes to reverse an action can be seen as the supplement to that action which
makes action cycles and sequences long chains where they would be simple
reversible atomic actions otherwise. So an autopoietic system has autonomous
behavior as a visible characteristic that does not appear at the dissipative or the
general systems levels of the hierarchy of kinds of systems.
An autopoietic system has a boundary that is maintained with its environment.

This boundary is permeable and events along the boundary are treated as
perturbations that are compensated for by the homeostatic action of the autopoietic
140
system. Within the boundary are nodes that have the function of producing the
components of the systems own organization out of the sub-structure of available
sub-components. This process of self-production is controlled by a hyper-cycle that
is self-regulating. This hyper-cycle exists in the imaginary realm beyond the
embodied system as the relations between quaternionic elements. This imaginary
realm may be seen as the intersection of sign and value patterning while the
autopoietic nodes themselves may be seen as existing under the auspices of process
and structure. So we can see how differentiation of the kinds of patterning sets the
stage for the internal differentiation of the autopoietic system. Process and structure
define spacetime from the point of view of data generation. Value is one no-where
and significance is another no-where. Each dissipative structural process can appeal
to a different no-where so that the autopoietic special system by containing its two
dissipative structures unites all four kinds of patterning in a single eventity and
produces an imaginary sign-value subspace for the hyper-cycle to inhabit. In the
hyper-cycle the different elements form a holographic non-well-founded set in
which each control element represents the whole of the system at a particular
moment in its cyclic homeostatic development. Each holographic control element
contains information about the whole system by subsuming all the other holographic
control elements as parts of itself.
These holographic control elements are vectors of sign-value which in

software may be represented as a combination of a pointer and a value of a variable.
Associated with this sign-value vector is some kind of rule. We can see this as a
primitive petri-net control structure. A more sophisticated version would be a
colored petri-net. The petri-net controls the behavior of the nodes of the autopoietic
system. Those nodes must continually distinguish themselves from each other while
maintaining their self identity. If we follow Jung’s definition of self then that
includes the totality of conscious and unconscious contents265. We can see
awareness as something produced as a by-product of self-production. We might
think of it as the interface between sign-value and process-structure. Each node when
it interacts with the sign-value net must relate that control to process and structure
aspects of the node. There is a continual rotation through the plane that separates
sign-value from process-structure. We might call the interface awareness which
becomes intentional when the sign-value control cycle directs change or learning at
some meta-level of work266. The unintentional is when the control net does not
intervene in process-structure. We understand the network of autopoietic nodes as an
active medium in the sense used by Goodwin in How Leopard Changed It’s Spots267.
The sign value imaginary hypercycle acts like the DNA in the active media of the
cell. The DNA provides the nudges to control the active media’s natural proclivities
265. Brooke, R. [1991] Jung and Phenomenology. London, Routledge.
266. See Advances Process Architectures tutorial by the Author. op.cit.
267. op.cit.
141
to action and interaction. DNA does not do everything, but instead functions as a
guidance mechanism in perfect symbiosis to the meta-system of the cell environment
which in turn lives in a larger level meta-system outside the cell.
The crucial distinction at the autopoietic level is between structure and

organization. At the dissipative special system level these two cannot be
distinguished. But within an autopoietic system there is the distinction between the
structural nodes and the organizing epicenters. The structural nodes exist in real
spacetime and they produce each other. The organizational epicenters are an
articulation of the nowhere beyond the singularity of the dissipative system. In fact,
each structural node is a singularity of the type that appears in the dissipative system.
So both the singularity of the dissipative system and the imaginary higher dimension
become articulated when we move to the autopoietic level of special systems
differentiation. The structural nodes are holographic in that each singular node
contains an image of the entire system as a template that allows it to build one
particular piece of that network that fits in synergetically with all the other pieces
produced by the other structural nodes. And this process is driven by the pentahedral
hyper-cycle of imaginary organizational epicenters which the Chinese call Hsing
that control this ordering in spacetime from beyond spacetime. Likewise the
organizational nodes are holographic in that each of them is a part of all the others
so that they can create a complete compensating control ring that can maintain
homeostasis in the midst of perturbations from beyond the boundary of the
autopoietic system. Notice here that the boundary of the autopoietic system is
assumed to be stable and not expanding and that instead of disorder coming from the
dissipative system into the environment as the dissipative system expands, that the
disorder is coming from the environment into the autopoietic system which that
homeostatic system must continually compensate for in order to maintain its
organization in the face of continual structural transformations. The special feature
of the autopoietic system is that it may react in multiple ways based on the same input
due to differing internal compensatory states.
It is also important to note that homeostasis is based on the ability to have

negative feedback loops and that these loops can be seen as attractors within the
autopoietic system boundary that keeps the system cycling close to balance. In fact,
we can posit that these homeostatic feedback loops can be used to compensate
against each other within the autopoietic system and thus produce stasis as the
multiplication of homeostasis against itself. We will call these static structural
elements within the autopoietic network structural invariants and contrast them to
the homeostatic aspects of the network that do not immediately cancel the action of
others. This is what defines the organizational aspect of the autopoietic system which
is flexible and will cycle back to a balance when perturbed. The organization
controlled by the imaginary hypercycles is the flexible aspect of the autopoietic
system that allows it to be within a perturbing environment and maintain its internal
142
balance despite continual unbalancing from the outside.
The autopoietic system is a chiasm of living/cognitive properties. This means

that it is a description of a machine that organizes itself and this is taken as a
definition of life. But this definition of life does not allow an objective view of the
system because it recognizes that the cognitive component is intermingled with the
living component so that they cannot be separated. We see this in the fact that we
cannot predict as observers what the output of an autopoietic system will be based
on any known input. Thus, the autopoietic system becomes something that is
completely opaque to the external observer who projects his/her theoretical models
on this opaque and inexplicable behavioral black hole. And on the inside too the
autopoietic system has its own cognitive apparatus fused with the processes of living.
So even though theoretically we can separate the structural singular nodes from the
organizational imaginary epicenters that produce the hyper-cycle, in practice it is
impossible to differentiate these two kinds of nodes. It appears instead that individual
singular nodes are acting intelligently within the autopoietic network because the
chiasmic nodes are holographic in terms of system patterning on the structural level
and holographic in terms of control patterning at the organizational level. So the
cognitive and living processes form a phased interval that can appear more or less
intelligent from different perspectives. The point is that the nodes themselves as
embodied within spacetime are acting in ways that can be ascribed to the attributes
of an intelligent living whole which Rescher has broken down into the attributes of
a system but which are fused together synergistically in the bodymind of the living
thinking organism.
We can follow Shapiro268 in his book on embodied reflection in saying that

structure is the exploration of the possibilities of a form in action. Patterning occurs
at the level of content and Formation occurs at the level of the boundaries of things.
When we explore the structure of a thing it undergoes deformations in which the
contents are transformed and the boundaries containing the boundaries are changed.
These are associated with the difference that Husserl makes between noema and
noesis when he says that every activity in consciousness is a mixture of the
transformation of contents and actions. So the formal-structural system is merely a
whole in which both form and content are dynamically changing over time. We
assume along with Aron Gurwitch that this always takes place on some background
and so this dynamism occurs as a gestalt to the observer. The inability to separate
noesis and noema or pattern and behavior means that it forms an interval which from
different viewpoints can be seen as contributing more or less content and thus
making more or less boundary contribution to the overall effect of the gestalt. We
note that the inverse dual of the gestalt is a flow in which the background is brought
to the foreground and the figure becomes a stationary reference point the formal
268. Shapiro, K.J. [1985] Bodily Reflective Modes. Durham, Duke University Press.
143
structural system mediates between these duals of flow and gestalt. Structure
attempts to comprehend the flow, especially discontinuous flow, while the system
attempts to comprehend the gestalt.
We also can follow Shapiro who distinguished between the virtual shadow of
perception which is the imagination and the virtual shadow of behavior which is
mimicry. These shadows we identify as the meta-systemic side-effects that appear as
a halo around the perceptions and actions of the organism. The autopoietic system
reinforces its behavior through mimicry and it reinforces its perceptions through
imagination. It projects its homeostasis back on itself recursively by mimicking itself
and by imagining the possibility of perfect balance that it is approaching iteratively
as an asymptotic limit. In the autopoietic system mimicry and imagination are tightly
coupled shadows of perception and behavior. Perception is the accepting of
perturbations from the environment which is reacted to as the homeostatic system
attempts to return to its equilibrium. The behavior is decoupled from the stimulus
because the return to equilibrium may not be by a direct path. Because the
commutative property has been lost a circumlocutious route back to balance may
need to be taken. As the special system weaves its way back toward balance other
perturbations may arise to be compensated for and so the actual behavior of the
system could be very different given the same stimulus just as it is with all animals
where simple stimulus-response models fail except in extremely constrained
environments. The autopoietic system is producing itself to an imaginary template.
The main behavior of the autopoietic system is the self-production in which it
attempts to mimic itself. So the shadows of imagination and mimicry are tightly
coupled because imagination of the balanced system and of the system organization
guides the behavior of rebalancing in the face of the loss of the commutative property
and the reproduction of itself in the face of constantly shifting structures underlying
the organization of the autopoietic system. At the next emergent level these shadows
of perception and behavior decouple to allow the projection of the world and self-
similarity that can accept difference.
Part of the inspiration for this view of autopoietic systems theory and its
relation to the social comes from an in-depth study of Plato’s Laws in the author’s
philosophical opus The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void269. In
that study it was found that Plato’s description of his “Second Best City” is a
representation of an autopoietic system in terms of a human city. Most of the studies
of Plato concentrate on the best city described in the Republic which is clearly
unlivable and is really a description of a city of the gods. Plato’s Laws is the first
work on systems theory as it gives a complete representation of an imaginary city in
a systematic way. This imaginary city, Megara, has many strange features that can
269. A series of fragmented working papers on the underlying structure of the Western Worldview by Kent Palmer (also known as
Abd al-Alim al-Ashari) (manuscript, see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/fbpath.htm)
144
be explained easily once you realize that he is describing an autopoietic unity of the
kind described by Varela and Maturana. But the use of autopoietic theory in this way
raises the question of whether human social entities can be autopoietic. On the basis
of this work I decided that autopoietic theory needed an extension that explained the
nature of the social in relation to its constituent organisms but had its own emergent
properties. I found the perfect model for this emergent jump from the autopoietic to
the social in the jump from the quaternion to the octonion algebras. These analogies
then attained a life of their own as I began to work out the counter-intuitive
implications of the analogies which ended up explaining some of the most vexing
problems in social and psychological science and led also to the realization that
knowledge of these structures are encoded into mythology. To be precise the story
that predates the Iliad and Odyssey of the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts, but
which was recorded later by Apollodorous is a narrative about the formation of the
reflexive system out of the ruins of the broken autopoietic system. These mythic
parallels plus the evidence of Plato tells us that the knowledge of ultra-efficacious
systems is ancient. In Plato the image of the reflexive city was Atlantis while the
image of the dissipative city is the Republic or Ancient Athens. Ancient Athens and
Atlantis have a war with each other which Ancient Athens wins and after which
Atlantis is destroyed. The war provides the background against which the
Autopoietic Second Best City of the Laws is presented. In Plato the Dissipative City
(Republic and Ancient Athens) wars against the image of the Reflexive City
(Atlantis) and this war frames the creation of the Autopoietic City (Megara of the
Laws).
We can also see it inscribed in Chinese Traditional Sciences270 like

Acupuncture271. The study of Acupuncture and Homeopathic theory which is
anomalous with respect to generally accepted Western medical models has also
informed this work272. These medicines each assume that there is an ultra-efficiency
that is operant in the human body that can be effected by unconventional medical
techniques. They are excellent examples of specific practical sciences that embody
special systems theory in different forms. Varela has written in The Embodied Mind
about the connection of autopoietic theory with Buddhism. But the connection with
Acupuncture theory is even clearer and in the case of this Ancient Chinese medical
practice there is no religious foundation that has to be accepted in order to appreciate
the theory. Instead, one must only accept the basic tenants of autopoietic theory and
apply those to the human body and then see how well Acupuncture theory embodies
those principles. Homeopathy273 on the other hand is dissipative instead of
270. Holbrook, B. [1981] The Stone Monkey: An Alternative Chinese Scientific Reality. N.Y., Wm Morrow.
271. Mann, F. [1972] Acupuncture: The Ancient Chinese Art of Healing. Vintage/Random House. Chen Chiu Hsueh [1981] Acu-
puncture: a comprehensive text. Chicago, Eastland Press.
272. See “Advanced Homeopathic and Acupuncture Theory and Beyond: A Holonomic Apporach based on Special Sysems Theory
and Emergent Meta-systems Theory” by the Author.
145
autopoietic. These two medical practices are duals of each other and are mutually
elucidating.
There is a special science called holonomics that is more sublime than the
crude normative models of Western science that applies to living things and social
orders and other anomalous phenomena that cannot be dealt with easily with
reductionism. Extreme reductionism makes clear the emergent boundaries between
different phenomena at different layers of the scale of emergent phenomena. Once
we accept this emergence then we can look at the emergent properties of hyper-
complex algebras as a guide to the understanding of the strange twists that are
introduced as we move up the scale of emergent special systems that dominate
dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive phenomena.
We need to remark that another image of the Autopoietic Special System is

the kleinian bottle. In that figure the inherent non-duality of the autopoietic system
is captured. An autopoietic system has a boundary. That boundary is closed from one
aspect, but from another aspect it is open so as to allow perturbations in from the
environment. This openly-closed nature of the Autopoietic system would not make
sense if we did not have the kleinian bottle to act as an image of how that kind of dual
non-duality might work. The kleinian bottle has a single surface that is both inside
and outside at the same time. If we imagine that every Autopoietic System is a
kleinian bottle then we can see that closure and openness is meaningless for an
autopoietic system because the same surface that is closed is the one that is open and
vice versa. The transition between open and closed occurs at the circle of self
intersection which is a nexus of ambiguity for the kleinian bottle where it folds
through itself. This self-reference is very similar to the kind of self reference we have
when we talk about self-production, self-maintaining, etc. This ambiguity is the
source of the paradox that lies at the center of the Autopoietic System. It is a
formation that is both non-dually dual and paradoxical or ambiguous at the same
time. The kleinian bottle is composed of two reversed mobius strips. In that
conjunction the edge distinction is lost. This composition of the kleinian bottle out
of a pair of mobius strips mirrors the way two complexnions are conjuncted to form
the quaternion or two dissipative systems are brought into an interplay to form the
autopoietic system. The kleinian bottle composed of intertwined mobius strips points
us to the pentahedron of four dimensional space which simultaneously embodies the
surface of the autopoietic system and its hyper-cycle projected in the imaginary
space beyond spacetime.
Similarly we need to remark that the soliton that as a physical phenomena

describes so well the ultra-efficiency of the dissipative system can be paired with its
273. Coulter, H.L. [1980] Homeopathic Science and Modern Medicine. Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books. See also Vithoulkas,
G [1980] The Science of Homeopathy. N.Y. Grove Press.
146
opposite (the negative soliton) to form the Breather Complex. This standing wave
formation allows the negative and positive solitons to fall into each other
continuously. This complex is a half way house between the soliton and the
instantaton. In the instantaton there is a potential trough that separates the locations
of manifestation of the instantatons in space time so that they seem to pop into and
out of existence at different spacetime locations without seeming to cross the
intervening distance. A breather does something similar in place where the negative
and positive solitons turn into each other continually transforming into their
complementary opposite. The conjunction of two solitons into a breather is similar
to the constitution of the kleinian bottle out of two mobius strips. These two
anomalous structures, one topological and the other physical waves are both images
of the same underlying autopoietic possibility in existence that is further defined by
the quaternionic algebras.
5. Reflexive Octonionic Special Systems

Autopoietic systems are closed and homeostatic. As models they do not seem
to apply very well to social phenomena or psychological phenomena that has the
fundamental trait of openness to a world or openness to the self. Therefore, we wish
to extend the autopoietic model to include this emergent level of phenomena that
goes beyond the simple living/cognitive chiasm and opens out another level of
chiasmic interdependence between the social and the psychological. We can think of
this in terms of the dual aspects of the unconscious inside and outside the
individual274. The unconscious within the individual is well attested in the work of
Freud275. The social unconscious is attested in the work of Marx276 and Jung277 in
very different ways. At this new emergent level we find that the special systems are
not homeostatic but instead what we might call heterodynamic. Plotnitsky calls them
“heterogeneously interactive and interactively heterogeneous”278. This brings us to
realize that at this level the sharp division between the imaginary hypercycles that
control the autopoietic system and the organization of the embodying nodes has been
destroyed so that there is a single rhizomatic structure which is variously seen as
imaginary and embodying at the same time. This is because the same network of
nodes can be seen from different perspectives as inside various individuals and so we
recognize it as an essentially substructure that is shared among various individuals
of the same socius. Socius is a term introduced by Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-
Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus when they deny the reality of the individual and
274. Lichtman, R. [1982] The Production of Desire. Free Press, New York.
275. Freud, S. [1938] The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. Selections. Translated and edited by Dr. A. A. Brill. New York, The
Modern library.
276. Marx, K. [1975-1998 ] Collected Works. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
277. Jung, K. [1966-1979] Collected works., Editors: Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham [and] Gerhard Adler. [Princeton, N. J.]
Princeton University Press [1966-79; v.1, c1970] 20 v.
278. Plotnitsky, A.Complementarities. op.cit.
147
instead see people as desiring machines (partial objects) embedded in a social

context. Castoriadis instead speaks of the Imaginary Institution of Society279 where
institution is an active term which produces distinctions in the indistinguishable
magma that underlies all social discrimations. From this perspective the social and
the psychological views of things are merged and fused into a single chiasm. The
reflexive autopoietic system is the social organism which can be seen as a network
of desiring machines in a social context. The individual bodies are merely the carrier
of the nodes in this network that together produce the social field. This extremist
view shows the meta-systemic viewpoint on the system of the individual. Deleuze
and Guattari are taking their extremist stance in opposition to the traditional extreme
of identifying people with their bodily individuality as overriding every other
influence. A correctly balanced view accepts both the meta-systemic and systemic
views as complementary and recognizes that the autopoietic networks that make up
the individual organisms are in fact strung together within a social field. This means
that a particular desiring machine component may be carried by one individual but
used by another within the same social field. This is what makes us complementary
and interdependent as social beings. But when we look inside ourselves at our
cognitive apparatus we also see that we can model ourselves with the metaphor of
the society of the mind.280 Thus, when we look within ourselves we see that the
autopoietic nodes must cooperate socially to build a whole living/cognitive organism
and when we look at individual organisms in their environment we also see that they
must cooperate together to live as socially organized groups. Thus the inside and the
outside mirror each other. The social is a mirror of the psychological and vice versa.
The reflexive special system embodies this mirroring that was implicitly in the
autopoietic network.
The reflexive social system is full of distortions. These distortions are so

intense in some places as to become opaque. The mirrors may either be transparent,
translucent, reflective or opaque. That opaqueness may either be within or outside
the individual. If it is inside then we call it the repressed individual unconscious of
Freud. If it is outside we call it the social structural unconscious of Marx. Either
unconscious may present intractable constraints on the individuals within society.
Reflexivity is embodied in the facticity of our own production together of the
constraints within which each of us operate. The inward and outward aspects may be
luminous as well as opaque. If luminous we can identify them with the archetypes of
Jung which are at least partially social in origin. The individual as a system is caught
in the partial meta-system of the socius which appears in turn luminous and opaque
beyond what appears possible in the overt and conscious behavior of the individuals
themselves. As mentioned by Lichtman, Freud does not imagine the structural
279. Castoriadis, Cornelius. [1987] Institution imaginaire de la société. English. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Translated
by Kathleen Blamey. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press.
280. See Minsky The Society of the Mind op.cit.
148
unconscious of Marx and Marx does not imagine the interior opacity of
consciousness itself that appears as an “it” to itself. Neither imagine the production
of social thought inwardly as archetypal dreams and outwardly as archetypal
mythology that was discovered by Jung. Buber speaks of the difference between I’-
It and I”-Thou. In each case the I’ or I” mean different things. We might identify I’
with the unified ego of Jung where we identify the I” with the Self as totality
described by Jung. Thus both Freud and Marx’s concept of the It of the unconscious
are inherently anti-social while the concept of Self we get from Jung includes both
of these in the Self-Thou social relation that we recognize as truly reflexive. In that
reflexivity we may ‘swing to the side’ of the other while maintaining ourselves as
separate selves. This is a way of describing the symbiosis of the dual autopoietic
systems within the reflexive realm. They line up the separate self-intersections so
that they become the same circle of self-intersection and when this occurs they
become mirror images of each other and enter into the non-dual dual Self-Thou
relation of paradoxical ambiguity. We can think of the universe of the desiring
machines as complementary to their dual: disseminating machines.281
Disseminating machines together through a resonating and socially constructed
consensus produce ideology for mutual consumption which simultaneously distorts
and hides while it reveals and clarifies. This production of ideology through
consensus is based on the ideational process that continuously provides a gloss
woven out of logos across the landscape of the unfolding physus. Both logos and
physus are socially rooted in the nomos. The ideational gloss of disseminating
machines weaves together the desiring machines into a living and intelligent social
field at the reflexive emergent level. Disseminating machines are the inverse in the
logos of the desiring machines in the physus. They are both called “machines” in the
sense of Deleuze and Guattari which say that when we move to the non-dual level of
Flesh there is no difference between the mindbody and the machine. This is a radical
and reified position. But it is similar to the position taken by the theory of autopoiesis
which also sees living things as machines that reproduce themselves. This extreme
reductionism changes the meaning of the machine through its nonduality which sees
the living and cognitive as fused in the autopoietic machine and which sees machines
as embodying desires in the picture painted by Deleuze and Guattari. Both kinds of
machines, desiring and disseminating, emanate orthogonally out of the unconscious.
Desiring machines emanate from the individual unconscious called (by Deleuze and
Guattari) the body without organs. Disseminating machines emanate from the social
structural unconscious of Marx as the ideological surplus. We might call this the
social body without organs. The term “body without organs” refers to the numinous
aspect of the interior unconscious that can range in intensity. We can similarly think
of the external structural unconscious of Marx as numinous. In other words the
281. The concept of Disseminating Machine was proposed by Aiyub Palmer. I have recently realized that there are actually four
kinds of machines: Desiring Machines and its dual Repulsive Machines, or Receding Machines, as well as Disseminating
Machines and its dual Absorbing Machines. Any combination of these four may make up a reflexive field or socius.
149
external structural unconscious is not always alienating. For the Entrepreneur taking
advantage of structural dislocations it is positively exhilarating. This intensity within
the interior or exterior social body without organs may vary in extremes of intensity.
But what appears orthogonally out of the external social unconscious are the
disseminating machines and they appear out of the physus and are seen as nodes of
logos. As a complementary aspect within the individual there are desiring machines
appearing out of the inner body without organs as orthogonal emanations that are
apprehended as appurtenances of physus supplementing the logos that unfolds
within the individual. Disseminating machines appearing out of the social
unconscious producing ideological glosses, mythos and other justifications and
legitimations interact with the desiring machines that appear out of the fragments of
the shattered selves producing connections that ‘work’ among themselves even
across the boundaries of individuals. Between the Disseminating machines and the
Desiring machines there is a tension and a complementarity that defines the
boundary of the individual within the social field through the myriad transactions
that appear between disseminating machines themselves, desiring machines
themselves, and between sets of the two that makes up the social field. Deleuze and
Guattari make the same mistakes of the Marxists and Freudians when they do not
realize that the unconscious must be bifurcated because it is a meta-system instead
of a totality. Detotalization is not enough. Sartre produces a picture of the detotalized
totality as an image of the meta-system of the Fighters in the ring which can be
thought of as an archetypal conflicted situation between system and anti-system. But
the boxers are themselves detotalized. Thus dual detotalization produces two
complementary faces of the pratico-inert which Sartre failed to recognize. These
were correctly identified as two exclusive unconscious aspects that are interior and
exterior to the individual by Lichtman. We can add to this Goleman’s realization282
that the unconscious has two completely different modes. There is the fight-flight
response and there is its opposite which allows us to “play dead”. When we realize
that the inner unconscious has two modes then we can expect the outer social
unconscious to also have bifurcated modalities as well. We see this bifurcation
appearing in social theory as the difference between alienation and anomie.
Alienation is the self-estrangement where as anomie is the loss of meaning. These
are very different phenomena at the social level by which the social environment
becomes coercive back toward the individual. Desiring machines must have an
inverse outside the individual that might be called disseminating machines. When
desiring machines are caught up in trauma they first react to the threat by adrenaline
speed up and then by shutdown. When disseminating machines produce trauma it is
by the realization of alienation and then anomie, or self-estrangement and then
hopelessness. One arises from the structural unconscious and the other from the
interior repressed unconscious of the individual. One is a social logos that
supplements the economics physus while the other is an individual physus that
282. Goleman, D. [1985] Vital Lies, Simple Truths: the psychology of self-deception. New York: Simon and Schuster.
150
supplements the interior speech of logos (thought). Desiring machines are

dissipative structures that combine to create the homeostasis of the organism. But
desiring machines can also connect across the boundaries of organisms to create
physiological and logophysical networks. This rhizome of connections that weave
together bodies are controlled and shaped by the production of a logos that is
supplemental to these connections without why that ‘work’. Disseminating machines
produce a consensus beyond the individual as a social thought process that
continually reshapes the rhizomatic connections imposing multiple hierarchies on
the rhizomatic autopoietic network graphs. Thus the arboressence that Deleuze and
Guattari repudiate finds its natural home in disseminating machines. Sartre calls the
primordial social structure a fused group283 and Cannetti calls it a pack284. We will
call it a disseminating machine which at once produces warpages in the social fabric
and attempts to iron out other warpages. In this way the social fabric becomes a
palimpsest in which the social writes itself on the social itself. Disseminating
machines working with and against each other create the distortion that inundates the
social fabric seemingly from no where that constrain the desiring machines floating
within the social field. Imagination and mimicry that are fused within the autopoietic
homeostatic living/cognitive special system become divorced within the field of
disseminating machine. This is why Dawkins can think of ideas on the model of
viruses and call them memes.285 Memes are traveling waves or packets of mimicry
interchanged by Disseminating machines. Similarly there is an aspect of the
imagination that is independent of the one who imagines which is called the imaginal
because it is not projected but appears as if it were autonomous and from the outside
of the individual. The archetypes appear as imaginal realities that appear both in
myth and dreams as universal numinous beings. True social thought like that which
appears in myth link the imaginal and the mimicry. Onar Aam speaks of mimickers
instead of desiring machines. This view is possible because desiring machines can
resonate within the fields set up by networks of disseminating machines. Desiring
machines can set up mimicking behaviors which when combined with imaginative
projection gives rise to resonances between individuals through communication
between partial objects that makes up their fragmented subjectivities. Disseminating
machines can be thought of as autopoietic special systems plus one dissipative
special system. Or we can think of them as dissipative systems outside the
autopoietic system. In this way we realize that there is a veritable “chemistry” of
combinations of the special systems. We may have autopoietic systems with attached
dissipative systems. We may have reflexive systems with attached single autopoietic
or single dissipative systems. These unbalanced combinations of balanced special
systems produce a complex series of possible configurations that are partially
balanced and partially imbalanced. That imbalance produces the possibility of
283. Sartre, J.P. Critique of Dialectical Reason. Volumes 1 & 2 op.cit

284. Canetti, E. [1962] Crowds and Power London, Gollancz.
285. Dawkins R. [1976] The Selfish Gene Oxford: Oxford University Press.
151
dynamism within the special systems as they attempt to compensate for unbalanced
molecules of balanced special systems. As with chemistry the combinations of
elements produce emergent effects with their own qualitative and quantitative
determinants unique and peculiar in each case and discovered only empirically.
The autopoietic network that is inwardly distributed socially cooperating

cognitive agents and is externally distributed socially cooperating organisms de-
couples the mimicry and imagination shadows of action and perception. Through the
imagination we project our world ecstatically beyond our perceptions to pre-order
the world within which the perceptions arise. Through mimicry we allow social
organisms to reflect each other and build up norms of behavior in which difference
can be tolerated and understood in view of an underlying invisible order. But the key
is that out of the de-coupling of imagination and mimicry comes the ability of
organisms to resonate simultaneously with each other. At the social level the
behaviorists who concentrated on stimulus-response missed the primary phenomena
of synchroniety recognized by Jung that gives life to the social. Desiring machines
do not just float around independently in the field of the socius but instead they form
a resonating swarm which allows them to react as if they were a single organism and
thus interface with the bodies of the organisms that contain them. The utter lack of
this resonance is schizophrenia. So in this we can see that the extremism of the
Deleuze and Guttari position which would only look at the schizophrenia of the
destroyed social field. Instead we must look at the polyphrenia of cognitive/living
creatures that swarm and resonate together as well. In other words we must look at
not just the hollowness of existence but its social wholeness as well. Wholeness and
Hollowness come from the same root and are opposite sides of the same coin. What
we want to do is look at the non-dual middle between these nihilistic images by
means of the lens of our new holonomics. The social is resonance of the many such
images that they appear as one. This happens internally within the autopoietic
network of the organism and externally within the social field of the individual
organisms. In fact, the psychological and social are merely mirrors of each other.
Psychological imbalances merely mirror distortions in the social field externally and
vice versa.
When we think of the reflexive autopoietic special system it is clear that what
occurs at this level is that the organization and structural elements of the autopoietic
system dissociate. In the autopoietic system the homeostatic feedback loops could
either work against each other producing structure or merely effect each other
producing flexible organization. At the reflexive level positive feed back loops are
added to the mixture that cause divergences from balance. These divergences take us
to the edge of chaos. The positive feedback loops may lead either to out of bounds
increase or decrease. They must be compensated for by the organizational feedback
loops which are no longer merely free to provide flexibility. Instead they must
provide counter balance for the positive feedback loops that are added to the
152
autopoietic system at the reflexive level. If too much positive feedback is added
either for increase or decrease of some variable then the reflexive autopoietic system
self-destructs. But if less positive feedback is added than the limit that can be
contained by the organization of the autopoietic system then it can function very far
from balance without losing its internal meta-stability. Thus the reflexive autopoietic
system can be seen as continuously projecting beyond itself and overflowing itself
due to the positive feedback loops within it, yet it does not disintegrate because it
does not allow any of the positive feedback loops full reign and compensates for their
run away behavior through the in-built organizational flexibility that was only used
to re-balance things in the autopoietic system. In the reflexive system the edge far
from equilibrium is always pushed to the limit and seems to continually over-spill
that limit, yet the special system continually recovers by transforming itself
internally into something new to compensate for the utter transformation of its
environment via its own projection of a world upon that environment. The reflexive
autopoietic system is continually transforming itself essentially into something
different. Thus the autopoietic reflexive system is continually undergoing spurts of
emergence. G.H. Mead in The Philosophy of the Present286 defines the social as
emergence. That is to say the social has the unique capability of being able to
generate and sustain utter transformation of its essence and the essence of its
environment in order to be able to support operation very far from equilibrium. Just
as the whole edifice is about to collapse it turns into something else which is
essentially different that can sustain that imbalance and turns it into a new kind of
balance at a different emergent level. The reason that this is the last level of the
emergence of special systems is that it is with the reflexive autopoietic special
system that emergence appears. With the appearance of emergence there are endless
emergences which continually transform all the levels of the tradition: facts, theories,
paradigms, epistemes, ontos, existence and the absolute.
Our worldview can be seen as being formed on this model. The worldview
projects the illusory continuity of the aspects of Being called presence, truth, reality
and identity upon existence as a process of showing and hiding. But at the point
where the timestreams first split to produce the imaginary which is opposed to the
mimicking repetition of the structural underpinnings of form there is a projection of
extreme reduction on the physus which via Western scientific approaches gives us
the emergent levels of ontos, i.e. that which defies extreme reduction and is
recognized as sui generis levels of phenomena externally to the social community of
scientists. One recognized set of ontic emergent levels might be: sub-quark, quark,
fundamental particle, atom, molecule, macro-molecule, proto-cell, living/cognitive
cell, multi-cell, organ, organism, society. Notice that the last possible emergent level
in the series is the social. To produce a social phenomenology we invert this ontic
286. Mead, George Herbert.[1932] The philosophy of the present,, by George Herbert Mead; edited by Arthur E. Murphy, with
prefatory remarks by John Dewey. Chicago, London, Open Court Publishing Co.
153
hierarchy and say that all the other levels arise out of the social. In other words, we
can recognize emergent phenomena in other spheres because the reflexive social
ontic level produces emergence as part of the self-transformation effected within
itself. But this production of ontic emergent levels in the physus is mirrored by the
production of ontological emergent levels that reflect in the mirror of the logos. The
dissipation of reductive projection appears at the next algebraic level up as the
autopoietic ring of ontological emergent levels already described as revolving from
the pluriverse to the facet. These are formed by a conjunctive combination of any two
adjacent levels that bound any particular level. So for instance, Form gives us figure
while the meta-system gives us the background to produce a gestalt which conjuncts
figure and background to form a picture of the system. This formation moves up the
series of ontological emergent levels and at its top (pluriverse) connects to the
bottom (facet) of the hierarchy to form an autopoietic ring. Finally at the reflexive
level two other series of emergent levels appear which interweave to social cultural
levels of emergent change with the individual thresholds of comprehension. Thus at
the final level of the worldview we get a split and interleaved structure with the
following form.
Figure 40: Twin hierarchies at the reflexive level
absolute (sociological)
INSIGHT (STAYING) (psychological)
existence (sociological)
REALIZATON (GNOSIS) (psychological)
ontos (sociological)
WISDOM (psychological)
episteme (sociological)
KNOWLEDGE (psychological)
paradigm (sociological)
INFORMATION (psychological)
theory (sociological)
DATA (psychological)
facticity (sociological)
GIVEN (psychological)
thusness, suchness, thatness (sociological)
The upper levels of this hierarchy from the psychological perspective are
taken from Shaykh al-Naffari287 who identifies realization, or “staying,” as a station
beyond insight, or “gnosis.” Sidi Ali al-Jamal calls it “Fixity by Change”.288 Thus,
287. Shaykh Naffari [1978] The Mawaqif and Mukhatabat. Translated by A.J. Arberry. London, Luzak and Co. Shaykh Naffari
distinguishes Knowledge, by which he means what I am calling Wisdom, Gnosis and Staying as the fundamental levels
of information beyond what is called Knowledge in this hierarchy.
288. Shaykh Ali al-Jamal [1976] The Meaning of Man. Darqawi Press, Norwich UK, page 72
154
the world has the inner structure built upon the pattern of special systems that
appears as this series of hierarchies. These are interspersed with the Kinds of Being
to form a structure that moves from the system of the Kosmos (monad) to the meta-
system of the pluriverse (facet).
Figure 41: World Pattern
true/identical/real/present Projection
System Kosmos (monad) -- universe

Pure Being
ontic hierarchy W reduction
dissipative
Process Being O
ring
autopoietic ontological hierarchy R
Hyper Being L
reflexive split sociopsychological hierarchy
D social psych
Wild Being
Meta-system Pluriverse (faceted) many universes Complementarity
anti-ontological
anti-epistemological
This formulation of the structure of the world gives us for the first time a clear
idea of the internal differentiation of what Heidegger calls the fourfold of Heaven,
Earth, Mortal and Immortal. In The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the
Void289 we discover the opposite feminine metaphysical principle articulated by
Aristophanes in the Birds composed of Chaos, Night, Covering, and Abyss which we
must invert to get another picture of the fourfold: Order, Light, Uncovering, and
Grounding which are related to the male in the cultural mythology of the Greeks.
Heidegger tells us that the Positive fourfold engages in mutual mirroring. When we
think deeply about the negative fourfold we realize that it is a negative image of the
four non-duals, i.e. Order, Right, Good and Fate. Order is the opposite of Chaos,
Uncovering which is the opposite of Covering gives us the Beauty of Right, i.e.
manifest cosmic harmony. Grounding which is the opposite of the Abyss gives us
access to the Good which is the source of the endless variety production in creation.
Fate which appears as Light in the day which is the opposite of night. Fate is
represented as a rainbow both in Plato’s myth of Er and also in the Covenant between
God and the survivors of the flood. That mirroring we discover to be the unfolding
mirrors of the imaginary algebras. Out of the singularity of the Real we get an
orthogonal imaginary mirror. These two mirrors reflect each other to produce the
fractal distortion or interference pattern of the Mandelbrot set. Three mirrors give us
289. (manuscript, see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/fbpath.htm)
155
the algebra of the hyper-complex quaternions as discovered by Onar Aam. Building

on his inspiration I posited that an inwardly mirroring tetrahedron should produce the
octonion hyper-complex algebras. There are no higher dimensional simple reflective
configurations. Thus the series of hyper-complex algebras come to an end and
beyond that are the infinite non-division algebras of which the sedenion is the
primary example because it is produced by the Cayley-Dickson procedure as the first
non-division algebra beyond the octonion algebra. Beyond the inwardly mirroring
tetrahedron of the octonionic reflexive level there are only infinite recursive
fragmented mirrors. The octonionic inwardly mirrored tetrahedron is the
mathematico-optical image of the fourfold. The reflexivity290 of the social appears
as what Onar Aam calls the tetrahedral Mirrorhouse in which the rays of light are
completely trapped in a closed algebraically defined chamber. The world unfolds
into this mirrorhouse of the fourfold first articulated by Socrates. Heidegger’s
intuitive understanding of this strange structure of the world of mutual mirroring has
now been underwritten by a mathematical model which sets up analogies for the
transition between systems and meta-systems that reveal the special systems as
layers of difference that separate the kinds of Being that synergistically produced the
synthesis of the world.
Figure 42: Formal Domain
non-nihilistic distinction
/
PROCESS STRUCTURE VALUE SIGN
present/absent identical/different real/illusory true/false
concatenation reduction exclusion reference
completeness consistency well-formedness coherence validation verification

clarity
dialectics hermeneutics phenomenology structuralism
UNITY
operator IS operand
Form Forms
Being Is
Autopoietic Form
We see the world as embedded in a series of conjunctions between the
290. Sandywell, B. et. al. [1975] Problems of Reflexivity and Dialectics in Sociological Inquiry: Language, Theorizing, Difference.
London, Routledge Kegan Paul.
156
opposite layers of the ontological ring centered around the special system. The
Kosmic Monad is the image of the Emergent Meta-system which is the archetype on
the edge between form and no form. The World Pattern appears as the layers of the
kinds of Being that are interspersed with the special system structures. The Formal
Domain is composed of a lattice that begins with the non-nihilistic distinction and
separates into the four aspects of Being, i.e. real, identical, true, and present. The
combination of these give us the six fundamental properties of every formal system
which are completeness, consistency, well-formedness, verification, validation and
coherence. These properties combine again to give us the four fundamental
disciplines of hermeneutics, structuralism, dialectics and phenomenology. These
four combine again to give us Unity in which the operator is the operand, or where
the noun is the verb as in the statements 'BEing IS' or 'Form Forms.' The Faceted
Pluriverse is produced by the unfolding of Greimas’ square into the chiasmic cube.
This occurs by recognizing the difference between the ‘anti-non’ and the ‘non-anti’
reversible pairs. This allows the book of the unfolded Greimas square to be contrast
with the anti-book which gives us the Chiasmic cube made up of two complementary
unfolded Greimas squares. This cube becomes the inwardly mirrored cube on which
the EMS cycle reflects. The Faceted Pluriverse is a chiasmic non-dual substrate
beyond all the dualities which can support the mirrored reflection of the EMS
formation. It turns out that every platonic solid has a single path that traverses and
bounces off all its surfaces to return to the same side going in the same direction. This
path is the unique path of the EMS cycle in the various platonic solids. This means
that there is a family of such cycles. These paths are found by stacking the solids to
find a path that is straight through all the centers. This stacking of each platonic solid
shows us the pluriverse that appears infolded as chiasmic facets within it.
157
Figure 43: Chiasmic cube unfolds from Greimas square that supports EMS cycle
A non-A
Greimas
Square
anti-A anti-non-A
A
non-A r non-A’
Chiasmic Unfolding
Booklike formation
i
j anti-A
non-anti-A k
anti-non-A
J
r
I
K Chiasmic Cube
Book and Anti-book
produce cube
k of octonionic imaginaries
i
E
j
J
Emergent Meta-system Cycle
r
I monad
r > mutual action
K creation ~ viewpoint
j
k seed i
# gestalt pattern
i k formation
annihilation!
E
candidate
j
Faceted Pluriverse
When organization de-couples from structure and the organization takes on

the character of periodic emergence at various levels of cognitive organization, then
there appear invariants within the world or the cognitive field that would not be
visible otherwise. Consider that the reflexive system adds in positive feedback loops
that are compensated by the organization of the special system. These positive
feedback systems allow variables to run wild and be varied randomly to test their
extremes. The whole system compensates for these extreme variations by
158
transforming it from one plane to another within the organization within the special
system. But this allows the special system to explore the external constraints on its
internal adaptive behavior. Emergences always take place by finding a niche of
special organization within a broader set of constraints. Through the addition of
compensated positive feedback the organism is able to explore the general
constraints of its internal and external environments and find the niches that can be
exploited by the creation of emergent properties that exploit that organizational
niche. When it inhabits that organizational niche we say that an emergent event has
occurred. But the emergent event was prepared for by the creation of mutant
attributes that were then varied wildly with positive feedback until an organizational
possibility hither to undetected is found and exploited by the continued variation of
that attribute and associated attributes that allow the cognitive/living system to
change itself essentially to take advantage of those organizational niches. When this
happens externally to the species of embodied individuals we call it evolution, i.e. it
does simulated annealing. When it happens internally within the cognitive space we
call it creativity. In either case, what the cognitive/living creature is doing is
unmasking invisible invariants and making them visible by taking advantage of
them. This unmasking of constraints that are invisible at the social level we call
science. At the individual level we call it the exploration of the unconscious
cognitive infrastructure. Either way what is occurring is that invisible things are
becoming manifest as the living/cognitive creature transforms itself utterly to
respond to these invisible invariants that organize the social field. So, for instance,
electromagnetism was invisible until various phenomena that displayed it were
organized by a theory. At first that theory separated electricity from magnetism but
later a paradigm shift occurred that made theorists realize that these two very
different phenomena were two complementary sides of the same thing and they
could intertransform. Thus, an invisible invariant of our universe, a fundamental
force, was made visible and then was able to be put to use to transform the world in
many ways by harnessing electromagnetism. Electromagnetism itself is invisible,
and only its effects are seen. But by putting all these various phenomena together into
a cogent theory we are able to see this invisible force creating a myriad of
phenomena in our world which leads to the invention of many devices that harness
that force. Thus social cognitive/living creatures have the ability to disclose invisible
features of their environment through the transformation of themselves and their
environments in essential ways. This is why Plotnitsky uses the phrase
“heterogeneously interactive and interactively heterogeneous.” It implies that the
many heterodynamic features of the reflexive system interact to produce an essential
expansion of heterogeneity and this new expanded heterogeneity interacts with what
was there before to throw it into an hither to unimaginable future which causes it to
rewrite the past. The heterogeneity is self interacting and self spawning. It is the
essential variety production291 of the heterodynamic system that informs all living
291. Beer, S. [1979] The Heart of Enterprise. NY, John Wiley.
159
things. And the variety is constantly changing as new kinds of things are constantly
being produced which continually changes the context within which each other kind
is viewed and its significance, relevance, value and aesthetic charm is measured.
So where a system is a gestalt, or showing and hiding structure, and a meta-

system is a structure that continually hides something that it does not disclose, so too
the reflexive autopoietic dissipative special system is a disclosive structure. It
discloses invariants that have always been there, but were “unthought,” by changing
the rules of the game in spurts, so that the entire space of possible rules is explored.
It does not show everything, nor does it completely hide anything, instead it strikes
a balance in which it shows something, but hides something else, by itself
transforming itself. What it hides is the world it used to project, and what it shows is
the new world it is now projecting. But, in fact, everything appears to be still visible,
but seen from a completely different viewpoint that elucidates it, and reveals the
hidden invariants that lurked under the surface of phenomena. The social gives a
special power to the cognitive apparatus of the living creature that it would not have
on its own. That is the power to see invisible things that are constraints on its possible
orderings. Because the social autopoietic special system can learn, and adapt flexibly
to its environment, and, in fact, change both itself and its environment essentially,
producing genuinely new kinds, it is able to create knowledge which is the most
persistent thing, and which summarizes the invisible invariants, laid bare within the
complete flux of an impermanent world. As Durkheim so insightfully remarked,
Kant’s Categories are social. That means more generally that whatever our
categories, or highest level concepts, they are socially constructed in the process of
our own essential transformation, as we explore all the possibilities within the
organizational constraints of our world. An excellent example of social categories
are those formulated by Igvar Johannson in Ontological Investigations292.
The next level of conjunction beyond the quaternion is the octonion. The
octonion is composed of seven imaginary variables that define timestreams and a
single real variable. These are different kinds of numbers that only appear different
from each other in conjunction. While it was Hamilton that discovered quaternions,
it was Graves that went on to discover Octonions (or octaves). While quaternions are
well explored in the mathematical literature, not so much work has been done on
octonions and their associated algebra. At the level of octonions the organization of
our reflexive autopoietic dissipative special systems find their analogy. Reflexive
level special systems are simultaneously four dissipative systems, two autopoietic
systems and one reflexive system. The two quaternionic autopoietic systems are
locked together into a marriage in which they are mutually compensating or forming
a symbiotic relationship. The emergent properties of the octonion appear when the
292. Johansson, Ingvar. [1989] Ontological investigations : an inquiry into the categories of nature, man, and society. London ;
New York : Routledge.
160
broken symmetry of one real to seven imaginaries is produced instead of two

quaternions vectors. We can see that the dissipative systems are the model of the
desiring machines level, and the autopoietic organisms are the embodiment at the
level of the individual, while the reflexive system embodies the social field (socius)
itself. Thus, each level of reality of organization within and outside the autopoietic
individual has a form of ultra-efficacious organization. The symbol of this ultra-
efficacious organization at the reflexive level is symbiosis among organisms, or
marriage contract, which is a non-nihilistic social form of organization that gives the
basis of the formation of the partial meta-system called the household within the city.
The adumbration of invisible constraints leads to the establishment of non-nihilistic
distinctions within society. Within the reflexive level partial meta-systems are
created as the mode of organization. These partial meta-systems, or deconstructed
systems, function as holons standing between the complementary meta-systemic and
systematic views of phenomena. Our model of partial meta-systems, or
deconstructed systems is the holon that allows us to see something as either part or
whole depending on our perspective. The octonion formation gives a mathematical
analogy for this structure that is half way between system and meta-system without
being either. This is to say, that at the reflexive level there is a grounded
representation for the holon as simultaneously a partial meta-system and a
deconstructed system. It is a meta-system in that it appears as a field containing four
dissipative systems distributed among two autopoietic individual organisms. The
field is reflexive and the two dissipative systems are sub-components of the
individuals involved in the field. But the fact that we can see the organisms as
symbiotic allows us to see that the dissipative systems that make them up can
actually interact between them, instead of just within the individuals. Thus when
there are four dissipative systems present within the field there is created a possibility
of six virtual autopoietic systems that cross the boundaries of the autopoietic
organism. At the reflexive system level this leads to the possibility of fifteen
different virtual reflexive systems made out of the pairwise combination of the six
virtual autopoietic systems. We know that there are 480 different representations of
the octonions so this means that each virtual reflexive system is composed of at least
eight minimal systems of elements if all the possible worlds are to be represented
instead of merely the one being projected at the moment. We will call the
simultaneous embodiment of all the different possible virtual octonion
representations the Pluriverse and will reserve for the Universe the particular
embodied representational configuration that is being existentially embodied, or
actualized, by the social cohort at any one time. The possible universes interact and
form the ground of the current universe.
In fact, this is an interpretation of quantum phenomena. As David Deutsch

remarks, it is possible to resolve the problem of the impact of the observer on
observations in quantum physics, if we instead consider that whenever quantum
indeterminateness occurs, then we are witnessing the overdetermination of the
161
phenomena by multiple universes in the pluriverse. These two models are

complementary opposites of each other. One projects depth within the observer and
the other projects depth outside the universe to account for the undecidability and
indistinguishability within the universe. Either way the universe is not allowed to be
a system that is rigorously complete and consistent but instead it can also be viewed
as an incomplete and inconsistent meta-system. Either the observers have depth that
disturbs observations of this indeterminateness, or other universes from the
pluriverse are disturbing it. Both answers are unacceptable. One leads to the
intrusion of the world of logos into the realm of physus which has carefully isolated
itself from contamination by subjective consciousness. The other leads to the
postulation of innumerable universes being created in any moment by all the
quantum events that are decided. But instead of these two scenarios that are nihilistic
opposites we can instead realize that there is a grounded balanced alternative to
them. That alternative is that there exists a reflexive autopoietic dissipative special
system that allows the observers to become symbiotic and allows them to project a
single world together through mutual resonance. Thus, the creation of the myriad
universes of many worlds theory does not take into account the annihilation of these
universes. A continual process of creation and annihilation of universes is taking
place as part of the social construction of the lived shared world which we project
together.
Ben Goertzel describes this process in terms of his ‘Magicians’ model of

chaotic processes. In that model there is a swarm of social organisms called
‘Magicians’ (autopoietic systems that make up a reflexive structure). They are called
‘Magicians’ because like the sorcerer’s apprentice they pop into and out of existence
according to the socially expressed need by the entire group for them to exist. The
‘Magicians’ mutually interact with each other forming gestalt patterns. One of the
patterns is their own organization so they are autopoietic. Then, on the basis of their
interaction they nominate which set of ‘Magicians’ should continue to exist in the
next living timespan of the swarm. They vote by annihilating each others
nominations till the nominees that remain are the candidates for the next embodiment
of the swarm. This formalism assumes discontinuity instead of continuity. It allows
us to switch between a system and meta-system view of the swarm by adding
discontinuities between the life spans of individual incarnations of the swarm. In
other words if none of the members of the swarm exist across the discontinuity
between life-cycles of the swarm then there is a meta-system rather than a system.
Goertzel’s ‘Magician’ formalism can be used to understand how reflexive special
systems solve the problem of the continual resolution of the world from the
pluriverse by social interaction. What happens is that in this model the four
beginning dissipative systems within the social reflexive field can be seen as a
‘Magician’ system. These dissipative systems project a shadow of virtual autopoietic
systems that transcends their actual embodiment. This explains why we seem to be
different people in different social situations yet are able to have enough continuity
162
to be seen as having a unified personality. From these virtual autopoietic systems that
are like a ghost haunting the actual embodiment of the organisms which contain their
own dissipative systems, we get a host of virtual organisms that represent the other
possibilities that are not embodied. This host of virtual organisms (fictitious persons)
project a penumbra of all the possible worlds that could be embodied as a
background against which the actually embodied world is seen. So we imagine as a
shadow to our perception of the designated as real world all the other possible
worlds. And we mimic as a shadow to our actions in the designated as real world all
the actions of the other possible fictitious organisms. The projection of the real world
takes place on the background of the possible worlds. That projection is a social
project. What happens is the virtual organisms and the virtual worlds in which they
live are nominated as possibilities and then annihilated in order to see what
organisms will be left in the next instant in what projected and designated as real
world. So the many universes are constantly being created, but then annihilated
again, to create the designated as real universe that is socially constructed and agreed
upon by the embodied cohort293. This social construction includes the mutual action
between desiring machines and the gestalt formations including their own
organization. That continual projection and annihilation results in a pervasive
phenomena of emergence (the creation of new kinds and varieties) which is the
hallmark of the social. So many worlds are created and many worlds are annihilated
in the chiasm of mutual action and gestalt formation that gives us the world as a
universe (i.e. a socially agreed upon and enforced construction). The observers of
that world are not just reactive and passive. They are instead projecting the world in
resonance with each other. They are not just reacting to stimuli but actually acting in
harmony simultaneously together to create and affirm their mutual world. The
symbiosis, or marriage, of the subjects within the world via the special system
formation takes them from being passive observers to being proactive participants in
their world that they are simultaneously living in and projecting. Thus, there is a
social phenomenology in which the relation between individuals is more important
than the individuals themselves.
Heidegger’s ‘dasein’ is a social group of dissipative reflexive systems which

is not just “with” (mitsein), but instead are actively interacting to create the world
through “heterogeneous interactivity and interactive heterogeneousness.” They are
participating through each other in the mutual creation of the world such that it is a
meta-hologram which we call the proto-gestalt that is not just holographic in its
contents but in the viewpoints on that content. This is to say that it is the very model
of interpenetration and can be viewed logically as a hyper-set294. This means in this
special logic a set can be a mediated member of itself as well. In fact, there is a hyper-
power set in which each member of the set contains the whole set each of which is a
293. See Desan W. [1972] Planetary Man New York, Macmillan.

294. See Aczel Non-Well-Founded Sets op.cit.
163
member of itself. In the view of the world grounded in special systems it is not the
observers that contaminate observations of quantum phenomena nor is it that there
are infinite universes in the pluriverse that interfere to cause the same effect. Instead
there is the social creation of a finite number of possible universes that continually
cancel within the pluriverse to yield the designated as real universe, that is socially
constructed by active participants that are symbiotically linked via systematic forms
that are analogous to the algebras of the octonions. Physus and logos are at their
origin non-dual. That means that beyond the duality of physus and logos there is the
non-dual realm in which they are the same thing. That realm has its own nomos or
order which is mirrored in the two horns of the duality. The worlds and its inhabitants
are all non-dual in their perception, actions and thoughts as Loy tells us in
Nonduality.295 Unless we can understand discontinuous processes such as that
Goertzel posits with his ‘Magicians’ formalism then we cannot approach the
nonduality which underlies phenomena. We glimpse the non-duality when we
project chiasms such as those spoken of by John S. Hans in The Play of the World.296
This vision of Hans is a much more even handed exposition of the non-dualistic
philosophy than that given by Deleuze and Guttari. Where they reduce humans to
machines and claim that there is no difference at the level of desiring machines,
Hans, on the other hand, shows that the it is the Play of the world which allows those
machines to become humanized. In the world there is an essential play --latitude --
within the existing constraints that can be explored and occasionally this exploration
leads to emergent phenomena. That phenomenon allows us to, occasionally change
our essence in spurts, and open up new vistas on the world. In this view the ghost is
not “in the machine” but is in fact outside of the machine on the surface between
system and meta-system. The ghost is the shadow of the meta-system that plays
across the entire environment exploring all its possibilities for ordering, until an
essentially new possibility is found and then it inhabits that niche by creating a new
kind of ordering that extends our Being in radically new ways, and also transforms
our environment into something completely different. This exploration can occur
because we are heterodynamic -- thrown outside our selves together -- and because
we actually organize on the form of the special systems with specific structures at the
dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive levels that interact in conjunction. They do not
fuse into one, and they do not fall apart completely, because they are ultra-
efficacious in conjunction. They have a reality, or an identity or a truth or a presence,
on all three levels simultaneously. Psychologically consciousness as described by
phenomenologists such as Gurwitsch297 is seen to be ultra-efficacious while the
social ultra-efficiency seems to be love298. The desiring machines explore the
possibilities of virtual organisms, the organisms explore the possibilities of virtual
295. Loy, D. Nonduality. op.cit
296. Hans, J.S. [1981] The Play of the World. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
297. See Aron Gurwitsch [1964] The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh, Duquesne University Press.
298. See Sadler Existence and Love op.cit.
164
worlds, and the world continually collapses these worlds into a single socially
constructed and embodied world through the annihilation of the possible worlds and
the possible organisms of the nominated set to bridge the discontinuity into the next
life-cycle of the swarm.
At this level one of the important algebraic properties is lost: associativeness.

We lost the commutative property at the quaternion algebraic level and now we lose
another fundamental algebraic property which in turn gives these reflexive systems
their special characteristics. Loss of algebraic properties drives the manifestation of
the characteristics of each emergent level of the special systems. When we lost the
commutative property mutual action appeared as the special property of these
systems. Now, when we lose the associative property, we see the social aspects of
these systems emerge and become prominent in their manifestation. When you
cannot easily reverse actions but must take circuitous routes back to a state prior to
some simple action, then actions become prominent in the analysis of systems
without the commutative property. Likewise, when you cannot reverse associations
at will, then those associations become very important characteristics of the special
systems under study. Different associations have different organizational properties
that are unique, they do not vanish under symmetry operations in this algebraic
system. So we realize that the highest possible alternating division algebra (the
octonions, as there is no other alternating division algebra beyond it) emphasizes the
social properties of systems. What is the social, but the relations of association
between autopoietic systems? So we find that octonion systems have very special
emergent characteristics due to the loss of a vital algebraic property. And those
special characteristic are social. As G.H. Mead has shown us the social is defined by
the presence of emergence and the ability of the social to cope with emergences.
Once the ability to respond to and generate emergences has appeared, then there is
the possibility for the generation of endless variety of emergent levels and
phenomena. So our definition of the special systems end where the endless sea of
variety due to the actualization of emergence begins. Note that the highest ontic level
is the social which flows from the highest algebraic special system level. Thus, the
ontic levels of physus unfolds directly from the field theory underlying the social
construction of the world, not the other way around.
The meta-systemic operation at this level is pattern formation. Pattern

formation appears in the association of elements within a gestalt or its dual the flow.
But here the pattern is the pattern of the pattern-er. That is to say, the autopoietic
system which organizes itself can take on many patterns which it actualizes as new
patterns constantly emerge within it. At the reflexive level there is a meta-patterning
organization that is the source of a myriad of patterns that are actualized. We have
already mentioned the ‘Magician’ systems of Ben Goertzel. In those systems there
are operators that correspond to each of the levels of special system organization.
The first operator is the annihilation operator. It is the dual of the creation operator
165
that emerges from the real algebra that produces systems on the background of
complete ordering. When the imaginary numbers arise it is a dual numbering system
that can annihilate with the real numbers if the conjunction that holds them together
yet apart is broken. Then the mutual action operator of ‘Magician’ Self-Generating
Systems arises when the commutative property is lost and actions cannot be merely
reversed to get back to the original state. This is a symmetry breaking at the level of
behavior of the system. This symmetry breaking occurs based on the prior symmetry
breaking that gives annihilation and creation as opposite fundamental operations
upon the field of illusory continuity (the real number timestream). A further
symmetry breaking occurs as we move from the level of quaternion to the level of
octonion algebras and their associated special systems. At that level associations are
no longer symmetrical and so social relations become important. At that level too we
can create unique patterns within the same gestalt or flow formation. What we
quickly realize is that what has mutual actions form together a single pattern as well.
So by the mutual actions we are creating the organization of the patterning. This is
the very definition of the autopoietic system, but raised to another level at which the
system is patterning itself ever anew through cooperative action. At the reflexive
level it is the cooperation and communication between the nodes of the autopoietic
network that is emphasized. The network is no longer seen just in the context of a
single organism but is seen in the context of the systems of related organisms that
together inform each other’s organization. For that to occur each organism must go
beyond itself and project the organization of it’s other. The self and the other then
mirror each other. This mutual mirroring based on mutual action is Reflexion. In a
reflex something reacts back on itself. In this case it reacts back on itself via the
mirroring of the other in it and it in the other at the level of Self-Thou rather than ego-
it as Buber tells us. Autopoietic networks whether in organisms, or between
organisms, must be social in nature. The inward and outward reflexive nodes mirror
each other so the social and psychological become chiasmic duals at this level of
organization. John O’Malley talks about the nature of reflexivity in The Sociology
of Meaning. Barry Sandywell also talks about reflexivity in relation to reflection299
and prereflective memesis300 in his series of Logological Inverstigations301.
299. It should be noted that the way Barry Sandywell uses the term reflection and the way it is used in this paper are not the same.
His use of reflection is similar to my use of autopoiesis. My use of reflection means the stopping of thought at its limits
which gives access to the supra-rational.
300. We can see a parallet between the terminology of Barry Sandywell and the terminology developed here:
non-reflective = normal open or closed system
pre-reflective = dissipative special system
reflective = autopoietic special system
reflexive = reflexive special system
[no term] = meta-system
301. Barry Sandywell [1996] Reflexivity and the Crisis of Western Reason : Logological Investigations (Logological Investiga-
tions, Vol 1), Routledge UK See also The Beginnings of European Theorizing : Reflexivity in the Archaic Age : Logolog-
ical Investigations (Logical Investigations, Vol 2); Presocratic Reflexivity : The Construction of Philosophical Discourse
C. 600-450 Bc (Logological Investigations, Vol 3)
166
The reflexive system is a chiasm of social/psychic properties. The social IS the

psychological and vice versa. Here the strike out of the IS indicates DifferAnce in
the sense of Derrida which means the reflection in the mirror is distorted by differing
and deferring. The mirroring at the reflexive level is distorted and that distortion is
what allows social entities to be the same yet different. This distortion appears as the
effects of the loss of the associative property within the octonion algebra. It produces
similitude as multiple associations can be very similar yet still be different as one
attempts to reverse, via chains of associations, another association that has no
symmetrical opposite. This produces endless variety in the mirroring similar to the
endless variety at the level of actions produced by the loss of the commutative
property. This is also what gives the social and the psychological sciences their
uniqueness. In both sciences context is everything. The sets of associations between
elements determines their unique characteristics and produces emergent effects that
cannot be simply mapped form one individual or social situation to the next. The
social and the psychological are two sides of the same coin. Social relations produce
differing psychological responses and the chemistry of particular people will
produce a particular unique quality to social relations. The uniqueness of one
generates the uniqueness of the other and vice versa in an indefinite mirroring that
just does not appear at the simply autopoietic level of the organism considered alone.
The distortion in the mirroring relates to Hyper Being or DifferAnce or what
Heidegger calls “appropriation” which “IT gives”. But the mirroring itself
exemplifies Wild Being which Heidegger calls the Fourfold of Heaven/Earth//
Mortal/Immortal following Socrates or Physus/Logos//Apeiron/Peiron. The
mirroring between the elements of the fourfold gives us an image of the inwardly
mirroring tetrahedron which produces octonion like relations between images. What
lies at the center of the fourfold is the point of existence or emptiness which is
represented by the hollow space between the distant mirrors of the inwardly
mirroring tetrahedron. Thus Hyper Being and Wild Being are related to each other
as the distortions in the mirroring are related to the mirroring itself. They are duals
that belong together and are ultimately the same.
It needs to be mentioned that just as the octonion appears from the conjunction
of two quaternions, so too we can see how the hyper-kleinian bottle may form from
the conjunction of two kleinian bottles. Constructively we get a mobius strip by
taking a figure eight (8) cross sectioned double tube and twist it 360 degrees and then
join the ends. Similarly we get a kleinian bottle by taking the same tube and only
twisting it 180 degrees before joining the ends. If we want to conjunct two kleinian
bottles we cannot do that by daisy chaining them because odd numbers of them are
merely kleinian bottles and even numbers are two sided. To conjunct two kleinian
bottles the obvious way to do so is to intersect them at the circle of their self
intersection. This can be done if we take a four leaf clover shaped tube and twist it
180 degrees. If we twist it 360 degrees we get instead a pair of conjuncted mobius
strips which appears as the pentahedron in four dimensional space. The conjuncted
167
pair of kleinian bottles is defined as a hyper-kleinian bottle. It is ambiguous when

one passes through the circle of ambiguity whether one has entered the other kleinian
surface or is still within the same kleinian surface. Thus it is unclear whether the
hyper-kleinian bottle is one or two bottles. At the level of the hyper-kleinian bottle
we achieve complete ambiguity or paradoxicality. This same figure can be seen to
exist in four dimensional space. Each kleinian bottle would exist in a four
dimensional subspace separated by a three dimensional hyper-plane. In the hyper-
plane there would be a sphere of ambiguity that occurs when the two circles of self-
intersection are allowed to rotate with respect to each other as they would do in a
hyper-sphere. A hyper-sphere is composed of two orthogonal circles (x,y) (z,w) that
move independently. This is why the hyper-sphere has the same volume as the torus
which also melds two circles but in three dimensional space. The hyper-sphere is
made up of an infinite number of spheres. We can see this when we think of the
infinite number of spheres in the torus where each planar cross-section defines the
circle of a sphere. Hyper-space has ana and kata directions according to Rudy
Rucker. Each point in three dimensional space can be a point of departure into the
ana or kata four dimensional directions in which case the solid object disappears
from our three dimensional space. We can see the ana and kata sides of our hyper-
plane as mirrors. The two kleinian bottles are mirror images of each other in the two
hyper-spatial mirrors. They are reflecting around the sphere of ambiguity that seems
to have horns that are mirror images of each other. This constitutes the mirror
rotation of the solid in hyper-space that is the sine quo non of the hyper-kleinian
bottle. Where the kleinian bottle turns inside out in three space the hyper-kleinian
bottle does the equivalent in four space which is entantiomorphic mirroring where
the left image becomes the right image. The sphere of ambiguity is a local non-
coherent place in spacetime. Normally non-coherence is global but the anomaly of
the sphere of ambiguity created by the four dimensional hyper-kleinian bottle is that
it produces local non-coherence which is the same as paradoxicality. This utter
paradoxicality is the other end of the series from the distinction which gives clarity.
We descend from the distinction into the non-dual duality of the mobius strip, and
then into the non-dual duality of the kleinian bottle which also contains a ring of
ambiguity. That ambiguity is emphasized in the hyper-kleinian bottle where the
equivalent of siamese twins are produced so that one does not know whether one is
remaining in the same surface or has moved to the twin surface. This complete
paradoxicality is the image of the mirroring of the mirrorhouse where all the
reflections are considered real. The reflexive special system is utterly paradoxical if
we take all the appearances as real. Therefore, this series of topological anomalies
describes the process by which the autopoietic system differentiates itself. In the
process of self-production the autopoietic system must redefine its boundary vis a vis
the boundary of the other autopoietic system in the reflexive environment. When we
see that the autopoietic system boundary is a kleinian bottle, then the extreme
situation is where the two autopoietic systems are siamese. The other extreme is
where they are clearly distinct. This is no mean task because when there are four
168
dissipative systems in a reflexive field then there are six possible virtual autopoietic
systems in the field. The two true, real, identical, present autopoietic systems must
continually define themselves against that virtual background of four other virtual
autopoietic systems. In that process there is the realization of the non-dual duality
that makes all the apparently different autopoietic systems globally the same since
they are part of the same reflexive field and each of them are merely seeing
reflections of themselves that they are calling other. The social system as G.H. Mead
says in his symbolic interactionism produces the individuals that make up the
society. They get their minds and their selves from the society of which they are a
part like fish are immersed in water or birds are encompassed by the air.
Steve Rosen302 has developed the idea of the series of topological anomalies
by linking them to the Plank’s constant303 as being what lies at the origin of the
series. In other words Plank’s constant gives us the first quantal value and that from
this quantal value unfolds the further quanta of action which we associate with the
series of topological anomalies. Something that follows from this is that each of the
emergent quantal levels is composed of a set of plank quanta.
Figure 44:
Numbers of
Emergent Levels of
Plank’s
Topological Anomalies
Quanta
-1 Source
0 Dimensionless Point
1 Plank’s Quanta
2 Lemniscate
4 Mobius Strip
8 Kleinian Bottle
16 Hyper-Kleinian Bottle
32 Hyper2-Kleinian Bottle
Plank’s quanta is the smallest differentiable grain of spacetime. As we know

from Relativity Theory even this smallest grain has a reversibility in it with respect
to its phase structure in relation to inertial frames. In other words the timelike and
spacelike components shift in relation to each other. This reversibility of the smallest
302. Correspondence on the Octonion Appreciation Society elist.

303. Atkins, P.W.[1974] Quanta: A Handbook of Concepts. Oxford, Clarendon U.P.
169
differentiable grain of spacetime is doubled in the lemnsicate, doubled again in the

mobius strip, doubled again in the kleinian bottle etc. It is actually possible to
understand this strange holonomic math.
Figure 45: Plank’s spacetime grain
LIMIT
LIMIT
Untwisted Ribbon Loop spacelike timelike
phase phase
LIMIT
LIMIT
timelike
spacelike timelike
phase phase
spacelike
reversibility
line drawing
We transform the plank spacetime interval grain into the lemniscate by

recognizing the single untwisted circular ribbon has both width and circumference.
The relation of width to circumference is the relation of the two spacetime interval
phases to each other. In spacetime the ratio of these two phases to each other can
change based on the inertial frame in which they are viewed. This dynamic relation
is solidified in the band of ribbon that is the basis for building the lemniscate. To get
the lemniscate we cut the band and twist it 720 degrees and then glue it back together.
To represent that surgery we need to have two images of the band which we represent
as orthogonal to each other. But actually the orthogonal images are glued back
together after the twisting operation. In the untwisted ribbon there are two limits to
the interval. After twisting and regluing there are still two limits but a spinor304 has
been introduced into our image of the interval. The plank interval is the image of the
meta-meta-system and is related to the 32nions.
304. Hermann, R. [1974] Spinors, Clifford and Cayley Algebras. Interdisciplinary Math. Volume VII Dept. of Math. New Brun-
swick NJ, Rutgers University.
170
Figure 46: Lemniscate
720 DEGREE TWIST

self image 2
self image 1
The Lemniscate places a 720 degree twist in the reversible sheet separating the
phase spaces of the plank spacetime interval. Thus, the lemniscate is an image of the
spinor in that interval. A spinor is the amount of movement necessary in the four
dimensions of spacetime to stand still, i.e. fixed points must spin. Non-spinning
points actually are rotating. In that it ranks with the tetrahedron, knot, torus and
mobius strip. In the lemniscate the entire ribbon is twisted 720 degrees while in the
mobius strip it is the bounding line that goes through that range of angular change.
The gluing of the sides of the lemniscate together transfers the angular change to the
line that bounds it making that line a singularity. This singularity is transferred to the
self-intersection circle of the kleinian bottle and the sphere of ambiguity in the
Hyper-Kleinian bottle. We move from anomalous figure to anomalous figure
through the twisting motions combined with gluing operations. Each reversible line
drawing is another image of the same figure. We need multiple images of the same
figure because it is self-embedding. To show how this self-embedding works it is
necessary to multiply the images of the self. What we are seeing here is that the
spinor has a special topological possibility of self-mapping which produces a series
of topological singularities. By twisting the figure experiences its freedom in the
higher encompassing realm within which it is embedded. By self-binding the figure
becomes more and more entangled with itself and in that produces anomalous self-
relations. The lemniscate is the image of the meta-system and is related to the
sedenions.
171
Figure 47: Mobius Strip
SELF
SELF
The mobius strip is composed by gluing the edges of the lemniscate together.
That gluing operation necessitates the twisting of the already twisted lemniscate in
relation to itself. So to represent that we need two images of the lemniscate which
we twist in opposite directions. Thus the figures represent the multiple copies that
we need of the form itself in order to represent the twisting and turning of that form
as we move up through the dimensions. In the self-binding operation all the angular
change of the lemniscate is transferred to the single boundary line. That single
boundary line is the anomaly which results from the self-intrajection of a spinor into
itself. Self-intrajection means that one copy of the self is taken out and twisted and
then reconnected to the self such that the self becomes dually/non-dual. It is dual
locally and non-dual globally. The mobius strip is the image of the reflexive system
and is related to the octonions.
172
Figure 48: Kleinian Bottle
SELF SELF
720
720
Circle of Ambiguity
720
720
SELF SELF
At the level of Kleinian bottle we finally have a minimal system of images of

the spinor Self embedded in the plank interval which has been twisted opposite ways.
This produces the circle of ambiguity which is where self-intersection occurs. The
kleinian bottle is the image of the autopoietic special system and is related to the
quaternions.
173
Figure 49: Hyper-Kleinian Bottle
720
720
SELF
SELF
OTHER
OTHER
Sphere
of
Ambigutiy
720
720
(x,y) (z,w)
720
720
SELF
SELF
OTHER
OTHER
720
720
Finally we encounter the other at the level of the Hyper-Kleinian Bottle. So
we see that the series comes from an intensification of mirroring of self to self
starting with the plank quanta’s reversibility and moving upward through the
replication of that quanta and then applying twisting and gluing operations so as to
explore higher and higher levels of dimensional encompassing. It is the image of the
dissipative system and is related to the complexnions. We can move beyond this to
the hyper2-kleinian bottle which is related to the reals and is the image of the system.
The inversion of these two series in relation to each other is made necessary by the
fact that the lemniscate models the non-nihilistic distinction in the meta-system and
from there the series of bindings devolve toward greater and greater paradoxicality
as we move away from the supra-rational.
Figure 50:
Numbers Emergent Levels of Ontological

of Plank’s Characteristics Algebras
Quanta Topological Anomalies Levels
-3 Further Fragmented pre3-geometrical 512nion facet

Sources
-2 Fragmented Sources pre2-geometrical 256nion pluriverse
-1 Source pre-geometrical 128nion kosmos
174
Numbers Emergent Levels of Ontological

of Plank’s Characteristics Algebras
Quanta Topological Anomalies Levels
0 Dimensionless Point ideal unity -- origin 64nion world

1 Plank’s Quanta reversibility of 32nion domain
phases
2 Lemniscate twist in self sedenion meta-system
4 Mobius Strip self intrajected twist octonion reflexive
8 Kleinian Bottle self2 intrajected quaternion autopoietic
figure 8 tube
circle of ambiguity
opposite twists
16 Hyper-Kleinian Bottle enantiomorphic mir- complexnion dissipative

clover-leaf tube roring of self/other
two klienian bottles
sphere of ambiguity
32 Hyper2-Kleinian Bottle meta-mirroring real system

eight lobe tube inward/outward
four kleinian bottles
hyper-sphere of ambiguity
64 Hyper3-Kleinian Bottle meta2-mirroring rational form

sixteen lobe tube of non-dual nomos among
different mathematical
8 kleinian bottles categories between physus
and logos
128 Hyper4-Kleinian Bottle meta3-mirroring integer pattern

32 lobe tube of non-dual rta (right)
16 kleinian bottles between limited and unlim-
ited.
256 Hyper5-Kleinian Bottle meta4-mirroring naturals monad

64 lobe tube of non-dual good or source
32 kleinian bottles of variety between having
and non-having
512 Hyper6-Kleinian Bottle meta5-mirroring binary facet

128 lobe tube of non-dual fate (wyrd)
64 kleinian bottles between existence and non-
existence
What is interesting about this is that it paints a picture which is the dual of the
Algebraic series of anomalies. Each of the Topological anomalies can be
decomposed freely into its plank quanta components that can be recombined freely
to produce higher or lower emergent levels. This is due to the holonic nature of the
fundamental unity of the plank quanta of the granular reversible interval. This has
175
implications for time as well as space if we consider that spacetime or timespace is

merely a network of plank quanta. Higher level structures may exist in overlapping
fashion re-using the same plank quanta modules. With respect to time we can see
how each instant the universe is created and destroyed by the twisting of the current
universe and then gluing it to the next image of the plank quanta. Thus the whole
universe can be seen as existing at some very high level of the infinite series of
hyper-kleinian bottles. It is differentiated down to the individual plank quanta of time
by a series of holonic stages. If both space and time are made up of a network of
holonic quanta then we can see how the intensification of mirroring occurs at deeper
and deeper levels as we move up the anomalous Topological Hierarchy. Each level
of mirroring is an emergent phenomena built holonomicly out of the lower level
stages.
The picture that we get through this inversion of the Algebraic and
Topological anomalous series is that greater and greater intensification of mirroring
occurs as we gain algebraic properties. Another way of saying this is to say that self-
binding and twisting intrajection increases as we move toward the system level or
the level of form. We unravel self-binding as we move toward the meta-system and
lose algebraic properties. This means that from the viewpoint of the meta-system the
possibility for paradoxicality increases as we move further and further toward the
system. The system is a social gestalt which is dependent on self-other and inward/
outward mirroring to be sustained. This intensification of self-binding however takes
us further and further away from the ground state of the meta-system which
embodied super-rational non-duality and interpenetration. That ground state is not
self-binding but other binding in interdependent arising. In the ground state self and
other are not yet differentiated. In the highly self intrajected state of the hyper-
kleinian bottle and above self and other are differentiated and then paradoxically
fused in spite of that differentiation producing ambiguity, paradoxicality and
absurdity. We can see that the hyper-kleinian bottle and other higher bottles in their
self-other ambiguity give us one image of the social field similar to that of Jung with
the collective unconscious. As we go within into dreams we find archetypal images
are socially shared. Thus on the inside we cannot distinguish between self and other.
This is precisely the kind of paradoxical ambiguity that appears at the level of the
hyper2-kleinian bottle. It is very different from the kind of image we see in the
octonion reflexivity which is another more supra-rational image of the social realm
which comes from the hyper-complex algebras. In this way we see how these
topological and algebraic excursions lead us to different models of the social which
are duals of each other. One sees the social as something that comes from a
paradoxicality while the other sees the social as more closely akin to supra-
rationality.
The social is our natural medium. This is why there is a collective unconscious
that Jung found in his psychoanalytical work. The archetypes are given form by the
176
reflexive structure of the social field. The collective unconscious comes from the fact
that all organisms that exist in a social nexus merely reflect each other. Sexual
reproduction is an entry into the sphere of ambiguity by two mirroring organisms.
Out of that comes the fertilized egg which is ambiguously fe/male until development
takes place. The archetypes are the non-dual structures that appear in the social
interspace. Jung says that these make up a Fourfold structure within the self. This
fourfold structure is composed of the Ego, Shadow, Animus (Anima), Cathonic
Mother (Wise Man) which together make up the field of the Self. Now we can
interpret this structure in terms of the non-dual special systems. The ego is clearly
the restricted systemic economy. We enter the unconscious by a series of steps first
encountering the Shadow which only needs a partner to manifest and which can be
related to the dissipative special system. Next we move deeper into the unconscious
and the Anima/Animus formation appears when we enter into relations with the
opposite sex. This duality places the quintessence305 of the other sex within the
unconscious of each of the sexes. Within the Male is a female subconscious
archetype and within the male is a female subconscious archetype. These archetypes
are more independent than the shadow and also more difficult to recognize their
effects. They are those invisible constraints which we recognize only with difficulty
through a glass darkly. This is the level which is related to the autopoietic special
system. Each autopoietic special system is an enantiomorpic image of the other
within the reflexive field. As a mirroring each contains the other. This containing
may either be merely formal from their reflection in the mirroring field or it may be
in the form of a paradoxicality of mutual self intersection beyond mere symbiosis so
that they actually become siamese twins. So the anima/animus is a necessity due to
autopoietic mirroring. Since the autopoietic system is reflexive both on the inside
and the outside, i.e. it is composed of quaternionic autopoeitic nodes in its
autopoietic network inwardly and it is a social being of quaternionic constitution
outwardly, so what it sees outside is immediately internalized. Quaternions are like
outwardly mirrored spheres. We can visualize the inward autopoietic network as a
net made up of these outwardly mirrored spheres. We can think of the nodes in the
social field as another sort of outwardly mirrored spheres. The individual is one of
these outwardly mirrored spheres. They are all contained in the environment of
inwardly mirrored fourfold tetrahedron. The social field is made up of all the
reflections between all these mirrors. Thus, when it sees the opposite sex externally
it internalizes that image within itself. Now the third stage is where the Wise Old
Man and the Cathonic Mother appear. Notice that this has to do with the again of the
animus/anima but now mediated by time. Time is exactly what appears in the
reflexive level as the ecstasy of heterodynamics. Through time the internal animus/
anima in one autopoietic system learns how to understand the anima/animus in the
305. We define quintessence as what is both Identical and Different, both True and False, both Present and Absent, both Real and
Unreal which is the opposite of Existence which is neither any aspect nor its opposite. Qintessence is the fifth aspect of
Being which is the combination of all the others and their opposites. It is the embodiment of the paradoxicality of Being.
177
other autopoietic system that is mirroring. With experience comes wisdom which is
feminine celestial for the male and masculine terrestrial for the female. Thus we can
say that the fourth element of the self in Jung’s description is due to the appearance
of the reflexive level. We look into the mirror seeing our ego, our shadow, our
animus/anima and by experiencing that mirroring in the social environment we gain
wisdom concerning our immersion in that mirroring. So we appear as the archetype
of the Wise Old Man (Tiresias) or the Cathonic Mother (Demeter). The self contains
all of these elements. Jung describes it as a whole306, but we would prefer to call it
a meta-system. The unconscious is the shadow of the restricted systemic economy of
the ego. It is specifically not a whole. It is inherently complementary and it is a
landscape that contains blackholes, miracles and singularities. It is best described as
a meta-system, as an environment, milieu, context, situation that surrounds the
system as it participates in the social field of which it is intrinsically a part. It is
unconscious because it lies beyond the confines of the system. It is the ego system
that is the whole. When we say that the self is whole we are merely seeing the
projection of the ego in the mirror of the social field. It is a collective unconscious
because it arises directly from the mirroring structure of the social field. The
archetypes are the internal constraints we feel within the structure of social
mirroring. They are invisible because we do not see the mirrors but the images that
reflect in the mirrors.
306. Lowen, W. [1982] Dichotomies of the Mind. N.Y. John Wiley and Sons.
178
Figure 51:
Inwardly mirroring tetrahedron =

Reflexive System
Social Node =
Autopoietic System
Autopoietic
Network Node =
Dissipative System
There is a fundamental duality between the Autopoietic Network
Node and the Social Node. The Social Node is seen to contain the
the reflexive field both inwardly and outwardly.
Similarly we can say that there is another image of this level of social
organization which is a conjunction of the soliton breathers into instantaton
formations called Super-Breathers. If soliton breathers are the images of the
autopoietic nodes in the autopoietic network, then the super-breathers allow these
nodes to become one with each other by exchanging solitons across spacetime. The
super-breather instantaton formation is what allows the nodes of the autopoietic
network within the autopoietic system to be the same across the gulfs of spacetime.
It is how the action at a distance necessary for the autopoietic system to self-produce
is achieved. The whole network resonates by the exchange of instantatons. They are
the image of the ecstasy of the autopoietic network. That network is like the
Acupuncture meridians307. Each point in the network is a locus of energy called
Chi308 which is transmitted by instantatons that pop around within the network. Chi
does not flow through the meridians between the points, but instead scatters around
within the network by instantly transitioning across spacetime via the fields that
connect the nodes with each other. Each node is independent of the others utterly.
There are no lines of exchange between them. Ultimately they are all the same
because they are exchanging quantum like particles with each other through the
fields that connect them. This is, of course, an image of the kosmic monad where the
307. Mann, F. [1964] The Meridians of Acupuncture. London, Heinemann.

308. Yoke, H.P [1985]. Li, Qi, and Shu: an Introduction to Science and Civilization in China. Hong Kong University Press.
179
totality and the monadic parts have the same constitution. Those fields are the
reflexive substrate within the autopoietic system and it is the social field outside the
autopoietic system. In the autopoietic system the psychological inside mirrors the
social outside in a warped mirroring that causes inversions and strange images to
appear that must be filtered out. That filtering process we call Being. We filter out
the pre-entities at the pattern level and continuously construct not just reality but
truth, identity, and presence as we attempt to clarify who we are in the myriad
reflections in the specified other prior to the abstraction of the “generalized other”
that G.H. Mead talks about in Symbolic Interactionism. Who we are is determined
by the structure of the special systems and the Self-Thou relations that arise out of
the flux of Ego-It relations. But the various images of the special systems mean
different things. The mobius-klein series shows us the quantum transitions between
supra-rational distinctions and paradoxicality. The soliton-breather series shows us
how ultra-efficient motion is achieved in the reflexive autopoietic dissipative milieu.
6. Autogenesis
There is another series that is significant for the definition of reflexive
autopoietic dissipative special systems. This is the series of XOR groups. We are
familiar with the exclusive or operation from Boolean logic. The XOR gives only
one of a pair of values “ored” together rather than both. XOR singles something out
from a set of possibilities309. Ben Goertzel and Onar Aam have shown that XOR can
be the basis for the arising of the hyper-complex algebras out of the Void. This
concept has been embodied in Ben Goertzel’s concept of ON310 which are pre-
geometrical entities that pop out of the void in a way similar to the marks in Laws of
Form. This is possible because the void can be construed to be vacancies which have
pre-geometrical relations to each other, and these relations between vacancies can be
construed to produce something by their combinatoric permutation. This can
produce the imaginaries because they naturally arise at XOR level four. Thus, by
taking an XOR of permuted vacancies we get the imaginary numbers. Once we have
the imaginaries then quaternions and octonions arise by symmetry breaking, and the
reals are merely a degenerative case. The point is that via the differentiation of XORs
at various levels the complex numbers may arise spontaneously out of the void. Once
309. Holland, John [1998] Emergence: from chaos to order. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. Mention on pages 98-101 is made that
the cyclical neural net can produce an XOR gate and that because of this neural nets can reproduce a general purpose
computing machine.
310. Goertzel, Ben [1996]Ons a theory of truly elementary particles, explaining the emergence of structure from void in physics
and psychology. at URL http://www.goertzel.org/ben/ons.html. See also Goertzel, Ben [1997]Ons: An Algebraic Foun-
dation for Being and Time, Explaining the Emergence of Clifford Algebra Structure at URL http://www.goertzel.org/ben/
OnsAlgebra.html. See also Ben Goertzel, Onar Aam, Tony Smith, Kent Palmer [1997] Ons Algebra The Emergence of
Quaternionic, Octonionic and Clifford Algebra Structure From Laws of Multiboundary Form at http://www.goertzel.org/
ben/Multi.html. See also Ben Goertzel, Onar Aam, Tony Smith, Kent Palmer [1997]Universe as Network: Deriving the
Standard Model Plus Gravity from Simple Transformation Rules on Discrete Event Networks at URL http://www.goert-
zel.org/ben/eventnet.html.
180
they arise then we can derive the other hyper-complex numbers. In effect the XOR
operation, or isolated vacancies within the void that are permuted, give us the
elements on which our hyper-complex algebras operate. Thus, the XOR not only
gives us the imaginaries out of the void, but also gives us the primitive elements that
our algebras operate upon, and which assume the kinds of relations that appear in the
Laws of Form. So, when we conjunct the hyper-complex algebras with the XOR
series, we get a systems theory rather than merely an algebra, and the systems
theory’s elements pop out of the void producing the fundamental pre-geometrical
elements. So this is a self-boot-strapping systems theory -- an autopoietic systems
theory which we would expect if it is to describe autopoietic systems. We call this
autopoietic meta-theory autogenesis.
Ons and Monads are pre-geometrical in some sense. Let’s explore this idea a
little deeper with the concept of negative dimension. We consider a point to have
zero dimension. However we do not talk about negative dimension normally. All the
N dimensions start from the point and unfold. However if we are considering pre-
geometry then it makes sense to begin to consider negative dimension. What we
notice is that the first negative dimension is negative one. But this is also the
singularity on the number line that leads us into the hyper-complex algebras. So we
can think of negative dimension one as giving us a single source beyond the origin
point. If we push beyond this to negative dimension two then we find the quaternion
imaginaries as fragmented sources. However all the fragmented sources at the
quaternion level amount to one. If we push on beyond this to negative dimension
three we find the octonion imaginaries as further fragmented sources. However all
the fragmented sources at the octonion level amount to one. Next we discover the
sources at the sedenion level and so on. Negative Geometry has to do with these
sources that unfold infinitely deep as we follow the Cayley-Dickson process down
the Pascal Triangle of the infinite non-division algebras. In other words there is a
subspace to all the geometrical spaces on N dimensions which are made up of the
hyper-complex imaginaries seen as sources of the origin point. We can think of this
as forming an Emergent Meta-system in which the point returns to its source in
negative dimension one and that this source fragments into the strange pieces of the
various imaginaries at each level. As this fragmentation occurs into holonomic parts
that mutually mirror each other properties are lost. But at each level and especially
the sedenion level we can use XOR or symmetry breaking to generate a seed for a
real point again. Thus there is a dialectic between the sea of infinitely deep algebras
and the production of “real” points that are zero dimensional. This gives a specific
meaning to our concept of pre-geometry. Pre-geometry exists in the negative
dimensions that underlay all the positive dimensions. A source is no-where in
relation to a point which is somewhere. The origin point is where the grid or
coordinates projected on space intersect with the landscape of space itself. Opening
out from the origin point is the arena of space which the next higher dimension
encompasses. So from this we can see that the generation of dimensions is a model
181
of the meta-system as proto-gestalt/proto-flow comprised of source, origin, arena,

and encompassing. Normal positive dimensional theory can account for the origin,
arena and encompassing of each dimension by the next higher dimension. But what
it cannot account for is the sources. When we note that the very first negative
dimension is also the singularity that produces the hyper-complex algebras then we
can see that beneath the N dimensional spaces there is a subspace or negative-space
of sources that fragment as we produce the various levels of hyper-complex algebras.
Taking this viewpoint the On or monad is really one of these sources in the negative
subspace of positive space. The negative subspace is another name for the void.
However, with this analogy we can see precisely where the void occurs in relation to
positive dimensions, i.e. it occurs as negative dimensions beyond the dimensionless
point and this is a pre-geometry because it is prior to the unfolding of an arena of
places, and prior to the arising of the encompassing dimensions beyond
dimensionlessness.
Figure 52: Generating Dimensionless points out of the Holonomic negative dinensional subspace
HOLONOMIC
SOURCE
MONAD VIEW
Complexnion Quaternion
N dim -1 dimension SPLITTING -2 dimension
HOLONOMIC
3 dim SOURCE
2 dim
SPLITTING
HOLONOMIC
1dim SEED ORIGIN SOURCE
<< Real Dimensionless POINT
0 dimension
XOR selection
Symmetry Breaking
Sedenion CANDIDATE
-4 dimension Octonion
-3 dimension
SPLITTING
SPLITTING HOLONOMIC
ARENA HOLONOMIC SOURCE
Dimension SOURCE
-N dimension
ENCOMPASSING
Higher Dimension
If we look carefully at the relation between the XOR levels and the hyper-
182
complex levels we see that they are, in fact, inverted in relation to each other.
Figure 53:
infinite algebras
Sedenion 16
Octonion 8 Xor(1)
Quaternion 4 Xor(2)
overlap
Complexnion 2 Xor(4)
Real 1 Xor(8)
Xor(16)
infinite Xors
This inversion of the two series was the idea of Tony Smith. My contribution
to this line of thought was the idea that the combination of hyper-complex algebra
and the pre-geometrical ONs gives a Systems Theory. Notice that they only overlap
between the 1-2-4-8 levels for each. When reals are emphasized XOR is eight. When
XOR is one, or unique identity, then we have octonions. Thus, the inversion of the
two progressive bisections give us a reciprocality between the algebras and the
elements manipulated by the algebras. Out of the element’s relations come the
algebras. Out of the algebraic relations come the selected elements. The more
differentiated the algebra the less differentiated the elements and vice versa. The
algebras describe the lengthwise slicing of the number timestream. So, when the
timestream is unified into a single illusory continuity, then the pre-geometrical
elements are multiplied. These pre-geometrical elements can be thought of as the
seven plus or minus two places in short term memory. They are pre-geometrical
because the actual geometrical things have not yet arisen. Rather we merely have
places for them to exist. Those places have some inherent relations to each other
based on the combination of the algebras that describe timesplitting and the XOR
operations that describe the selection of places from among the available places. We
have also called these places monads. So the Ons are the same as monads except the
monads are seen to exist rather than participating in Being. Ons are considered
particles of Being. They are ontic. Thus we also differ in terms of how we conceive
the level of manifestation to which the Ons refers. Here that level will be Existence,
rather than Being, and we will use the term “monad” instead of On unless we
specifically mean what we have previously called a pre-entity. Here we will consider
that the monad or On to be like the place in short term memory where something
might be stored for instant recall.
So we can have eight monads and one timestream element in our short term
memory. Or at the other extreme we can have eight differentiated timestreams
183
braided together and one monadic pre-entity. Here the pre-entity, or monadic On, is
thought of as a place for something to be stored for instant recall -- that is a hole for
a possible chunk311 placed in short term memory. Between these two extremes there
is the level of quaternion and XOR(2) or the level of complexnion and XOR(4).
These show a less extreme trade-off which uses less short term memory, i.e. only six
places. Seven plus or minus two occurs as the range of extension of short term
memory between the inner and outer complementarities of the timestream splittings
and the XOR differentiation levels. The only other level is the long term memory
which is the encompassing meta-system within which short term memory as a
system is embedded. Long term memory is made up of sedenion and above hyper-
complex algebras and XOR(16) and above places which form a rhizome in which all
memories held long term exist. So we see from this that our systems theory naturally
gives us the relation between short term and long term memory and shows us that the
places of short term memory, i.e. the monads or Ons, are just enough to allow the
spacetime relations of the timestreams to pre-entities to be held together.
Manifestation is the movement of pre-entities and timestreams through the short
term memory as a result of presencing within existence. How we experience
presencing depends on how we distribute the relations between time and pre-entity
within the grasp of our short term memory. Between the short term and long term
memory there is conversational memory that only can be accessed socially within
dialogue. Mnemonic devices are a simulation of this social memory within the
individual. Notice that in mnemonic devices we place things in places building up a
larger network of places than our short term memory would normally allow. In effect
each place is a set of short term memory locations within the landscape of long term
memory and thus simulates the conversation tree that we naturally build together in
dialogue and which we can revisit together, just as in the mnemonic device the one
remembering can walk from palace to place. This conversational memory is
accessed when we remember something from a previous conversation within the
conversation together so that we can jump to that point and continue talking about
that conversational subtree. It is difficult to do that when we are alone. We simulate
it imperfectly with mnemonic devices created by Simonides. This social memory is
normally ignored because we tend to study the memory of isolated individuals. But
what we notice is that two individuals together produce a chunked conversational
history in their resonant dialogue. The pre-entities and timestreams dance together
and intertwine between them as they experience mutual self-manifestation to each
other and together. In that they belong together and are thus the Same as Heidegger
tells us in Identity and Difference312. Each of them has the ability to move into one
of the five modes based on the combination of timestreams to pre-entities they
choose. We will identify those modes with the Five Hsing. If one is talking the other
is receptive. The receptive one is in the mode of the meta-system while the other is
311. Simon, H.A. [1974] “How Big is a Chunk” in Science, Volume 183, February, pages 482-488.
312. Heidegger, M. [1969] Identity and difference.Translated by Joan Stambaugh. [1st ed.] New York, Harper & Row.
184
in one of the special system modes or in the mode of the system. So together there
are five times four or twenty modes. This is the number of possible interactions
between the five Hsing and the four receptivities of the earth, i.e. earth, air, fire and
water. The one who is talking is celestial and the one who is silent is terrestrial. When
there is active mutual listening and resonance then this role naturally oscillates
between them producing the traces in conversational social memory of the
diachronic moment of their timestreams and the synchronic slices with pre-entities
both held in short term memory of each as they manifest to each other by the mutual
presencing of their dialogue.
Figure 54:
Individual A
Long Term Memory Short Term Individual Memory

Memory
Conversation
Tree
Dialogic Social Memory
Short Term
Memory Long Term Memory Individual Memory
Individual B
When we bring together two individuals in long term conversation they build
together a rhizomatic conversation tree between them that they share when together.
The conversation tree is difficult to access when they are not engaged in
conversation. The conversation tree is like a channeling of the dialogue which is
chunked and accessed by both together one reminding the other as the dialogue
elaborates the tree of conversation topics built up over many conversations. This
grows out of the Yin/Yang cycling of the celestial and terrestrial roles across many
conversations. Where the long term memory is rhizomatic, the social memory is
arborescent. The interacting short term memories play across this landscape of
individual and social memory endlessly constructing revisited diachronic chunked
patterns that is the core of the mutually shared lifeworld. The movement of each
person through this mutual lifeworld is an emergent meta-system (EMS) formation
and the pair together represent the meta-EMS formation. The EMS for each is merely
the symmetry breaking of the restricted system of intentional consciousness into
non-intentional awarenesses of each for the other. Each has its set of monads held in
a compact dual system. This slowly breaks down as each fragments inwardly into
185
separate timestreams. These timestreams are flowing backwards as Igvar Johannson

suggests in Ontological Investigations because that is what it takes to produce
resonance. This means each individual is backing into the future seeing time flow
back into the past given what appears in short term memory. This, at least, is the view
from the mind which faces forward in space but backward in time. The heart on the
other hand faces backward in space oriented toward the advent of the Yang celestial
cause but forward in time. The heart is what encompasses the supra-rational vision
which the mind cannot comprehend. Seeing the trail of events in short term memory
as time flows backward allows resonance between individuals that cannot be
understood otherwise. This resonance is the basis of social phenomenology. As
events flow past the number of monads that can be held decreases and the
subjectivity of the observers splits until the monads finally vanish and the
timestreams enter into the fusion of the non-division meta-system of sedenions and
above. Since this trailing off occurs for both people in resonant conversation then
they play off of each other assuming various levels of restrictedness and laxity of
complexity and simplicity in their grasp of the diachronic movement across the
mutually held conversation tree. The dual EMS formations within each individual
that fades into the trance of the meta-system and then refocuses on the dualistic
experience of the restricted system produces a meta-EMS cycle in which the
timestreams of one become the monads of the other and vice versa. This meta-EMS
allows the mutual dance of the two to model the dynamics of existence. One fades
and the other makes a new distinction which then fades while the first makes another
distinction. These mutually held distinctions fade into the mutually held meta-
system by a mutually held resonant structure which is the social compact of the meta-
EMS shared by the symbiotic couple.
Here we see the trade-off between the duals: gestalt and flow. The XOR
produces the gestalt, one monad over against the background of the rest of the
monads. The hyper-complex algebra produces a similar structure in the timestreams
where one time is held as real over against the imaginary others. One timestream acts
as the global clock for the coordination of the others. Flow emphasizes hyper-
complex algebra while gestalt emphasizes XOR. Both share the singling out of one
over the rest. XOR does so by logical selection while the hyper-complex algebras do
so by symmetry breaking.
186
Figure 55:
TIME MONADS
Sedenion
one real and fifteen imaginaries
Octonion plus XOR(1) FLOW
one real and seven imaginaries unique one timestreams plus
reference
Quaternion plus XOR(2) social gestalt/flow
one real and three imaginaries one selected out of two
Complexnion plus XOR(4) psychological
one real and one imaginary one selected out of four gestalt/flow
Real plus XOR(8) GESTALT
one selected out of eight figure on ground in
time
XOR(16)
one selected out of 16
Flows and Gestalts can be synchronic or diachronic.

Figure 56:
Flow Add reference element 7+1 Octonion only

XOR(1) = monad
[emotion] [feeling]
frozen timelapse photo river running
Gestalt 7+1 Xor only Add real time variable
[concept] [idea]
perceptual gestalt temporal gestalt
The synchronic gestalt is the perceptual gestalt which we continuously use to

make sense of things in our world. When this grasping includes meaning (noesis),
then we call that gestalt a concept, a grasping of something’s significance. This is
normally done on the background of feelings running through the body which always
rushes past ungraspable like a river through us. We are mindbody in bodymind
composed of grasped thought-feelings immersed in the flow of feeling-thoughts.
Men normally identify more with the concepts and women with the feelings in our
dualistic gender training. Outwardly we project synchronic flows as emotional
187
reifications of feeling complexes. We also project outwardly diachronic gestalts as

ideational reifications of conceptual complexes. Ideas are conceptual patterns with
illusory continuity. Emotions are feeling patterns collapsed into an overlapped
timelapse snapshot. Emotions only relate to feelings and ideas only relate to
concepts, so outwardly the cultural artifacts are reified along dualistic lines. These
outward artifacts are triggers of either emotional or ideational cascades of feelings
or conceptual streams. Most cultural artifacts are complex combinations of ideas and
emotions. The outward dualistic reifications have the use of relating inward concepts
and feelings to outward behavior. Ideas allow concepts to attain illusory continuity
so that theory can influence behavior and produce praxis. Emotions give us patterns
of feeling complexes, so we can know when things feel right or wrong in the midst
of behavior and thus furnish inward cues to change behavior in midstream. Ideas
allow behavior to follow a projected plan. Emotions set the feeling envelope that
behavior should be constrained by. With a combination of emotional templates and
ideational plans external behavior can be guided by internal concepts and feelings.
In the social sphere internal concepts and feelings are externalized, they become
objectified as a social gestalt, and then are re-internalized by the participating
individuals. This is the way Berger and Luckmann describe the social dialectic in
The Social Construction of Reality.
Social Phenomenology posits that introjection is the first moment in this

dialectic, followed by an internalization, which then leads to a re-externalization and
objectification of social realities. Normal individualisitc phenomenologies believe
that externalization and objectification come first followed by introjection and
internalization. But really these two descriptions are complementary. It is just
because of the individualistic bent of our culture caught in the nets of dualism that
the social becomes ignored and underplayed. It is merely another example of
blindness to the meta-system and obsession with the system. Social phenomenology
emphasizes the meta-systemic field, rather than the restricted economy of
individuals that stand out from the field, in compensation for the over emphasis on
the individual in traditional phenomenology. In that emphasis we follow Merleau-
Ponty, Levinas, and Sadler over against Sartre, Heidegger, Schutz, Berger and
Luckmann. Schutz, Berger and Luckman are sociologists who founded social
phenomenology but still had an individualistic bent to their analysis. We prefer an
analysis more like the schizoanalysis of Deleuze and Guattari, or the description of
the field of “play” by John Hans in the Play of the World, where the individual
becomes fragmented and sinks at least partially into the “Magma” of the social field
as Carlos Castoriadis describes it. We can approach social phenomenology in a
radical way by positing Wild Being as the basis for the constitution of the other more
consolidated kinds of Being. Our social phenomenology emphasizes the primordial
nature of Wild Being, and how the consolidation of the other kinds of Being occur
out of that rhizomatic field of the social magma at play in which disseminating and
desiring machines roam freely in search of each other in a Dionysian dance313. Out
188
of this daemonic dance we ascend the levels of reification step by emergent step until
we produce Pure Being of emotional templates and Illusory continuity of ideas. This
occurs through the cycle that Berger and Luckmann posit of introjection,
internalization, externalization, and objectification, but starting as Sartre and
Cannetti have done from the Fused Group or the Pack. From there partial
individualization proceeds inwardly as institutionalization occurs outwardly, These
are the two kinds of ossification of the primal social field. But in spite of this
ossification we can still see these as reifications embedded in the social field which
is primary.
Social phenomenology which takes the social as primary uses reflexive

autopoietic dissipative special systems theory as a means of understanding the
interaction of the various emergent levels that appear out of the social field in the
meta-systemic environment. It allows us to isolate these levels and progressively
reify them until the restricted economy of individuals appears. It is by this
conjunction of juxtaposed elements that we construct the truth which emerges out of
the reality through presence and identity. We socially construct all the aspects of
Being as we move from Wild to Pure Being. The meta-system is the reality filter on
the truth of the restricted system. Not everything that becomes present is accepted by
that filter, and not everything in the meta-system is granted identity by the system
attempting to hold itself and others to its own truth. The system and the meta-system
are reciprocal and complementary duals of each other. In order to understand them
both we need both a General Systems Theory and a Specific Meta-systems Theory,
i.e. a meta-systems theory built on the understanding of the Emergent Meta-systems
formation. Between these two the theories of rare and anomalous Special Systems
takes form. In that we appreciate the relations between gestalts and flows as we
combine a process view with the formal structural systems view of socially
embedded phenomena. From there we begin to formulate the underpinnings of
special systems theory in terms of the relations between monadic pre-entities (Ons).
and hyper-complex algebras. This gives us a logomathematical basis for our special
systems theory that recognizes the emergent levels by the trade-off between monadic
differentiation and timestream differentiation. These compensatory differentiations
cycle around each other producing the emergent meta-system formation which is the
model of the meta-system because it generates the octonion Clifford lattice that
dominates all higher N-dimensional spaces embedded in non-division algebras.
We note that between the two extreme compensations of eight monads and
one real timeline or eight timestreams and one monad which fill short term memory
slots, there are two lesser compensations between two monads and quaternionic
timestreams OR four monads and complexnion timestreams. These lesser
compensations between protospaces and fragmented time both fit into the pattern of
313. Maffesoli, M. [1993] The Shadow of Dionysus: A Contribution to the Sociology of the Orgy. SUNY.
189
the perfect number six which is holonomic, i.e. the sum of the factors equals exactly
the whole with no excess or deficiency. These are the formations related to social
flow and psychological flow, i.e. the state of timeless time in which we experience
synchroneity. In these states flow and gestalt become one chiasmic non-dual
configuration. This is an expression of the rare phenomena of ultra-efficaciousness,
i.e. ultra efficiency or ultra-effectiveness, in the world. The quaternion plus two
monads is ultra-efficient and the complexnion and four monads is ultra-effective.
Ultra-efficacy is when it is possible to switch back and forth freely between these
two modes of psychological and social flow. Social flow is when the octonion plus
monad field congeals into a mode of quaternion plus two monads conjuncted.
Psychological flow is when the real plus eight monad field congeals into
complexnion plus four monads. The psychological flow allows a minimal system of
monads to interrelate in complex time. Time is split into real and imaginary time so
the minimal system can be rotated such that one monad out of the four is within an
imaginary timestream. The social flow allows two monads to operate in a field of
quaternionic timestreams. Thus, two different people can operate in the same
temporal field fragmentation. Together they form an octonion with all eight
timestreams (4+4) which congeals into just four shared timestreams as they resonate.
Then each has two monads which can occupy each of the four timestreams. So there
is a perfect correspondence between the four timestreams and four monads with two
each contributed by each person experiencing the symbiosis of social flow. To say it
another way each person contributes six elements to give twelve in all which is the
number of close-packings of spheres in three dimensional space called the kissing
number. This is the fundamental interaction of two perfect systems. These systems
each contribute two monads and four timestreams. By resonance the timestreams
become entrained. Then each contributes two monads to occupy two of the four
entrained timestreams. This gives a completely fused minimal system of four
monads within four resonating timestreams shared between the two individuals
embedded in an octonion field. This represents perfect logomathematical harmony
as the two perfect systems based on the number six enfold each other.
Special systems theory uses this logomathematical accounting to explain how

we move from the duality of gestalt verses flow to social and psychological flows
which are chiasmic duals. Also we can go on to represent the proto-gestalt and proto-
flows of the meta-system in terms of the sixteen timestreams of the sedenion non-
division algebra and the XOR(16) generated monads that is its dual. The meta-
system is inherently complementary. So we can see it either as sixteen timestreams
or sixteen monads, but without any overlap such as that provided by the special
systems. This non-overlapping quality is what characterizes the meta-system at the
sedenion and all higher non-division algebraic levels. In the sixteen monads one is
selected by the XOR. In the sixteen timestreams one is designated as real by
symmetry breaking. The designated as real time stream and the selected monad
together provide the seed for the renewal of the symmetry breaking sequence that
190
leads to the EMS by the spontaneous arising of the special systems one after the other
in a cascade of symmetry breakings which generates the EMS cycle again and again.
The sixteen monads represent the meta-system as arena while the sixteen
timestreams represent the meta-system as origin. If we take another view that
emphasizes flow then we would say instead source and encompassing flow. The
difference is whether the emphasis is on the designated as real or selected elements
or on the imaginary timestreams or the unselected elements. Each monad can have
its assigned timestream if we push past the sedenion level to the 32nion level. In that
case there are two selected monads and two designated timelines when the symmetry
breaking occurs. One of these two becomes imaginary and the cascade of symmetry
breaking starts all over again. At this level we can have both proto-flow and proto-
gestalt views at the same time. So the duality of the meta-system actually comes from
the embedding of two sedenion formations in a 32nion field. However, if we want to
see all four manifestations of the proto-flow/gestalt, i.e. origin, arena, encompassing
stream, and source we must go on to the 64nion level instead. But these embeddings
are actually infinite because the pascal triangle is infinitely deep, and so any set of
things no matter how large, like every quark in the universe, or every particle in the
pluriverse, can be encompassed by this infinitely deep fused non-distributive field
which we identify with Indra’s net of interpenetration spoken of by the Mahayana
Buddhists. It interpenetrates because the division property has been lost and the
elements are no longer distributive. But ultimately it produces a CL(N) Clifford
Algebraic314 lattice that decomposes into a lattice of octonions, i.e. a lattice of social
fields or worlds. Myriad worlds spontaneously arise out of the pre-geometrical level
as it appears as a meta-systemic environment for the advent of the spontaneous
arising of the special systems which together produce the dynamic of the emergent
meta-system.
Now that it is clear how the logomathematical basis of special systems and
meta-systems theory work, we an go on to consider the strange and unique relations
between all four anomalous series we have mentioned thus far. We believe that the
logophysical realm has a special anomalous infra-structure which is made clear when
we bring all these series together and consider their inner coherence.
314. Snygg, J. [1997] Clifford algebra : a computational tool for physicists. New York : Oxford University Press.
191
Figure 57: Four Anomalous Series315
Hyper-complex Algebras Series Soliton Series

sedenion sea
*octonion *super-breather instantaton
*quaternion *breather
*complexnion *soliton
real waves
Topological Series Exclusive OR Series
sphere of ambiguity XOR(16) xooooooooooooooo
*hyper-kleinian bottle *XOR(8) xooooooo
*kleinian bottle *XOR(4) xooo
*mobius strip *XOR(2) xo
lemniscate XOR(1) x
These four series have a complex and interesting set of mutual relations. Of
course from a purely mathematical point of view they have no relation. It is only
when we begin to line them up as analogous series of emergent thresholds that they
begin to have relations based on meanings rather than purely based on their form. We
have already seen that the XOR and Algebraic series are flipped and overlap to give
us the logomathematical basis of special systems theory. We also saw that the
topological series is also inverted due to the modeling of supra-rationality verses
paradoxicality. So that they allow us to understand the devolutions of distinctions
from non-nihilistic to nihilistic by the self-defining autopoietic systems that form
symbiotic relations. We noted also how the paradoxicality appears in the series of
penrose triangle, nekker cube and tesseract. Finally, the soliton series gives us a
model of how non-dual particle/waves appear as ultra-efficient in physics and show
how action at a distance in the autopoietic network can be achieved. Once we
recognize that each of these four anomalous series play a role in defining the
dissipative autopoietic reflexive special systems we can go on to wonder how they
relate to each other.
315. Special System analogs marked with asterisk.
192
Figure 58:
Dissipative
Identity Presence
Math Information Carrier
Hyper-complex Series Soliton Series
1
3
Topological Series XOR Series

Binding Logic
Real Truth
Autopoietic
Information
We see this as a cycle of self-founding or autogenesis where solitons and anti-

solitons in channels represent non-dual information carriers that are quantal and
discrete rising above background wave patterns. The soliton and anti-soliton bits
carry information which is manipulated by Boolean logic which can select individual
bits based on the XOR operation. But it can use all sixteen logical operations
specified by Matrix Logic. Bits are seen to move in Cooper pairs so that we get truth
vectors instead of scalars and this is an autopoietic formation which is ultra-efficient
like super-conductivity316. Where solitons allow us to present data, when we add
logic we are able to sift it to create information content whose truth can be
determined. The XOR also allows us to select one and thus by changing the selected
one from the set allow us to count. From this counting comes mathematics based as
it is on the number one and addition. When we reverse addition to get subtraction and
by that we create identity (no difference with self) and zero which mediates all
differences within the whole matrix of possible differences between elements. Thus
math produces identity and as a by-product the concept of zero which comes from
the cancellation of differences. Simple math leads to algebra with variables and that
leads eventually to the understanding of hyper-complex algebras which give rise to
the concept of special systems which can be defined rigorously by the combination
of logic and math together. Hyper-complex algebras ultimately define the reflexive
level, and it is at that level that the meta-levels of learning arise and knowledge
appears along with the identity aspect of Being. Math has no binding to what exists.
When we add that binding we get topology which is the ultimate underlying
coherence and constraint on shape transformations. At this level wisdom appears out
of knowledge because it is the combination of knowledge and experience. Topology
316. Kresin, V.Z. and Wolf, S.A. [1990] Fundamentals of Super-conductivity. N.Y., Plenum Press.
193
is the interface between mathematical possibilities and dimensional realities. This is

where the sedenion appears and spontaneously gives rise to the real either as real
number line against fifteen imaginaries or selected ontic monad over against fifteen
unselected monads. Topology gives us the possible surfaces and solids and higher
dimensional manifolds in each dimension of space, but it also gives us the means of
producing channels within which solitons might flow as data streams. Think of
channels as negative knots embedded in a surface. These data streams can encode the
wisdom we have taken from the combination of knowledge and experience and as
such it might represent realizations. Those higher level data streams can again be
selected based on XOR and treated numerically within an algebraic milieu, then
reapplied to topological constraints which again are encoded in soliton bit streams
flowing through channels with high efficiency. This is a definition of self-founding
or boot-strapping or autogenesis which is based on self-reference. But conceived in
the context of holonomics it can be seen as the holonomic root of the EMS cycle.
Figure 59:
CANDIDATE MONAD
math = nomos physus
octonion complexnion
reflexive dissipative
HYPER-COMPLEX SERIES SOLITON SERIES
identity presence
SEED VIEW
binding logos = logic
sedenion -> real quaternion
meta-system -> system autopoietic
TOPOLOGICAL SERIES XOR SERIES
reality truth
Autogenesis or self-founding is at the root of the emergent meta-system and

special systems theory. Self-founding or boot-strapping has the same form as the
EMS and the special systems themselves, as we might expect in a world where
operator and operand are the Same, i.e. belong together. In self-founding the
information carrier is based on topological constraints which is based on algebraic
relations of conjunction and juxtaposition which in turn is based on the arising of
numbers from the XOR of logic which is applied to the information in the carrier
which is in turn based on the topological definition of the information channels. And
so we go around and around, at each level founding a new emergent ontological level
out of ontic bits. Self-founding is seen as the underlying dynamic indicated by the
conjunction and juxtaposition of the four anomalous sequences. Together they
specify the mechanism for founding successive emergent layers in a spiral in which
each layer uses the last as its basis. The first pops spontaneously out of the void.
194
There is no ultimate substratum. It is as if each emergent layer popped out of the void
as each layer is equivalent to the void. This gives us the form of the kosmic monad
when we realize that the spiral’s top reconnects with its bottom so the spiraling is
endless self generation and so we get a definition of interdependent co-arising as
self-founding spirals around to give rise to itself again and again. Always we must
ask about the empty center that the spiral moves around, in other words this cycle of
self-founding defines its own groundlessness because it rests on the void. The self-
connected spiral defines emptiness and like the skeptics endless dialectic gives an
intimation of the threshold of formlessness. That which defines the void is no
different from the void. The EMS cycle defines the edge of form and formlessness
by the cancellation of form and anti-form which is like the cancellation of soliton and
anti-soliton in the model of self-grounding. But soliton and anti-soliton when equal
form breathers and super-breather instantatons which are anomalous holonomic
formations. These anomalous holonomic formations give us an intimation of the
intrinsic structure of the void itself. It is on account of this inherent structure that
monads (Ons) can pop spontaneously out of the void via the XOR formation which
gives us imaginaries. Once imaginaries appear then the cascade of symmetry
breakings occur to give us quaternions, octonions, sedenions, 32nions, etc. All these
formations have perfect balance with no deficiency or excess and thus they are
holonomic models of interpenetration of forms which allows all forms to be seen as
embedded in the void. They are like perfect numbers in this respect. But every
distinction made in the void is groundless and thus must be non-nihilistic. Yet we
devolve from those perfect distinctions producing surplus and lack and move from
lemniscate through the series of topological anomalous dual/non-dual surfaces until
the solid of the sphere of ambiguous paradoxicality is produced at the hyper-kleinian
bottle level. Higher and Higher dimensional hyper-kleinians are produced by
increasing the lobes of the self-crossing tube twisted 180 degrees from four to eight
to sixteen to thirty-two, etc. Each level produces the intensification of paradox into
absurd, hyper-absurd, etc. The binding of self-interference is the stuff out of which
things take shape at the various heuristic levels and this creates the medium which
allows the information carriers of soliton and anti-soliton to flow in flawless and not-
so flawless channels. Perpetual information machines are possible when information
enters a system from a phase space containing a strange attractor. When these
particle/wave non-duals called solitons operate in Cooper pairs then we move from
dissipative to autopoietic special systems and the phenomena of super-conductivity
arises which is as close as we come to perpetual motion -- perpetual flows of
electricity due to zero resistance and thus zero entropy within the circuit is made up
for by the entropy of producing the proper temperature. At the reflexive level defined
as the limit of the hyper-complex algebraic sequence the physical analogue is the
macro-quantum mechanical Bose-Einstein Condensate in which all the various
atoms reduce to a single form fused together becoming a single field. This
transformation of individual atoms into a condensate field and back again calls into
question the rules of mutual constraints of forms and their transformative
195
possibilities which is addressed by topology. Topology lays the groundwork for

understanding surfaces such as the surface of the sphere of ambiguity. In that surface
are the channels produced by hyper-kleinian bottles multiple self-intersections
which provide channels for soliton and anti-soliton information carriers. Notice that
the tube which is figure eight or cloverleaf or has eight, sixteen, thirty-two or higher
number of lobes forms a single channel with 720 degrees of curvature like a spinor.
A spinor is the definition of a point that stands still in four dimensional spacetime.
To stand still in four dimensional spacetime it is necessary to rotate 720 degrees. This
is what the solitons traveling through the hyper-kleinian tubes do. A spinor with its
720 degrees has four representations:
Figure 60: Embodiments of 720 degrees of angular change
Math = algebras = juxta- torus hyper-sphere same volume

position of dimensions
Waves = solitons knot no knots in hyperspace
XOR = something selected tetrahedron pentahedron = two mobius
strips intertwined
Topology mobius strip local duality and global
non-duality
These four representations are related to the four moments of self-founding.

The mobius strip shows us a topological picture of the 720 degree rotation. The
tetrahedron is the simplest form and thus an idealization of “something” as a minimal
system as B. Fuller noted in Synergetics. Knots denote interference and thus are a
symbolization of waves of which solitons are a unique and anomalous kind. The
torus takes a simple circle and builds a figure out of circles juxtaposed which gives
the synthesis of the toroidal figure. This figure is of the same kind as the
juxtaposition of numbers that in conjunction gives hyper-complex algebras. The
proof of that is the fact that the torus and hypersphere have the same volume. A
hypersphere is a torus through the fourth dimension where a sphere is rotated around
the fourth dimensional axis. That rotation is governed by the algebraic form of the
quaternion. When the Yang celestial cause hits the Ard (Yin Earth) it has four
receptivities which is equivalent to saying that their interaction is a dance of self-
founding or autogenesis which defines the void, and thus shows that the forms within
the Ard are no different from the void. The interactions of heaven and earth take the
form of interpenetration of forms which shows us that forms are not different from
the void, and their self-founding merely defines emptiness which is the formation of
emptiness itself. Forms are formless and formlessness has form. The self-founding
at the heart of special systems holonomic theory has the form that arises out of the
void, defines the void, falls back into the void and indeed exists as the void itself
whose production of myriad forms is the same as non-production and whose
196
destruction of forms is the same as non-destruction. Holonomic special systems and

meta-systems theory is the theory of the inherent and intrinsic order within the empty
void which does and does not give rise to the myriad forms and does and does not
swallow them back up again. It intimates that production, non-production,
destruction and non-destruction, maintenance in continuity and non-maintenance
due to discontinuity are all the same. Void is empty and emptiness is void, yet
between them arise and fade the ten thousand things based on the nomos embedded
intrinsically in the void of the various anomalous series which by their meaning
operate together to generate self-founding of autogenesis in groundlessness and
groundless self-founding dancing around the empty center of a cyclone raging in the
void. Self-founding is, of course, another image of the fourfold of the empty world.
What is strange here is that the four series together actually produce
“something” when they are brought into complementary focus with respect to each
other. We will call that “something” a figure. This is because we can imagine
solitons moving through the tubes of the hyper-kleinian bottle. We can image those
solitions carrying information and that information giving rise to the hyper-complex
algebras. It is possible to think of the hyper-kleinian bottle as siamese computers.
They can be construed to be Turing machines in which the information flowing in
one direction through the tubes via solitons is the tape while the information flowing
in the other direction through the tubes is the state machine. Siamese computers
share not just their tapes but their state machines as well. They do so via the
instantaton breathers that use the sphere of ambiguity as their potential trough. These
instantatons allow them to communicate with each other concerning their
computations. But either of them can change the state machine or tape of the other.
Siamese computers are the computational equivalent of the hyper-kleinian bottle. In
previous papers I have shown that mobius strips can be used as tapes in Turing
machines. In a kleinian bottle the tape and the state machine become one thing. In a
hyper-kleinian bottle they can write to each other’s tapes or state machines via the
ambiguity of self-intersection. Such a siamese computer could be imagined to
function via solitons and anti-soliton bits moving through the tubes of the hyper-
kleinian bottle. Logic arises spontaneously and then algebra as soon as the XOR
produces number. Such a machine could be imagined to use Matrix Logic if the
solitons were to move in Cooper pairs, i.e. if they move ultra-efficiently. But this
strange formation of auto-genesis in the figure of Hyper-kleinian bottles with
solitons running through them must be remembered to be a devolution from the
supra-rational which appears right on the brink of paradoxicality of the sphere of
ambiguity. The supra-rational is when the four series are kept apart and held to be
utterly unrelated. The auto-genesis figure is the congealing of the devolution away
from supra-rationality. However, it is extremely interesting and unexpected that such
a concrete figure can be formed by combining the four series into a single
representation. We will call this figure the kernel of auto-genesis. It is the proto-seed
of the EMS cycle. That is the seed that gives rise to the whole cycle itself rather than
197
merely the monads of a specific cycle. Yet still every seed, every monad, every
viewpoint, every candidate can be seen as a facet of this proto-seed of autogenesis.
It can be seen as what lays beyond the faceting of the EMS into cycles and as what
produces the various facets of the EMS phases.
7. Duality and the Kinds of Being

The reflexive appears to us in terms of a series of levels of learning when we
see it in terms of logos and a series of levels of change when we see it in terms of
physus. We can see these levels of learning or change as Bateson did as being
truncated at four levels. So we see that a fifth level is unthinkable if we follow his
analysis in Steps to the Ecology to the Mind. But what this reveals is that knowledge
appears at the reflexive level. And the strange thing about knowledge is its
persistence. Knowledge is the most persistent thing in existence. We build our world
out of its persistence. In the autopoietic system cognition and living are mixed. Thus
there is no separation of knowledge out form the tacit understanding of the organism
of its environs. But at the reflexive level knowledge appears as what persists among
the changing patterns of experience. Once knowledge appears we can rise to meta-
level after meta-level in our ability to deal effectively with knowledge. We learn,
then learn to learn, then learn to learn to learn, and finally learn to learn to learn to
learn in the face of change, change of change, change of change of change, and
change of change of change of change. But we hit a blank wall if we try to
comprehend learning or changing at the fifth meta-level. This lack of comprehension
beyond the fourth meta-level of learning/change brings us right up against the
ultimate groundlessness of all our knowledge that was pointed out by Hume. We
interpret that groundlessness to be identical with the Buddhist concept of Emptiness
(Sunyata).
Figure 61: Levels of Emptiness
Emptiness =
• hole = system
• nothing = dissipative
• interpenetration = autopoietic
• emptiness of emptiness = reflexive
• Indra’s net of interpenetration = meta-system
And we see in the meta-levels of learning the premonition of the phenomena

of the fragmentation of Being. Being appears in four kinds and when we cease to split
physus from logos we are faced with the fact that there are different ways that any
entity that essences forth a world can relate to that world. The combination of the
ways of essencing forth the world are equivalent to the projection of ideation within
a world. So we see that ideation that arises in the production of persistent knowledge
198
has a substrate that produces the illusory continuity. That substrate breaks up into
four kinds of Being or ways in which being-in-the-world can be actualized.
At the reflexive level then we find that the chiasm between learning and
change appears as the difference between the most persistent thing (knowledge) and
the most fleeting of things (the flux of experience). But this appearance of the
epistemic goes hand in hand with the arising of ideation that reveals the substrate of
the illusory continuity that supports the ideas. Ideation appears on the basis of the
four kinds of Being as ways of relating to the world.
Figure 62: Meta-levels of Being
The levels of Being are these:
• Pure Presence -- present-at-hand -- pointing -- transcendence

• Process Being -- ready-to-hand -- grasping -- immanence
• Hyper Being -- in-hand -- bearing -- immanence in transcendence
• Wild Being -- out-of-hand -- encompassing -- transcendence in immanence
Pure presence is the traditional kind of Being described by Aristotle,

Descartes, Kant and most of the philosophical tradition. Process Being was
discovered by Husserl and first made the basis of a philosophy by Heidegger in
Being and Time. Once different modes of being-in-the-world were discovered to
exist then the question was how many were there. Merleau-Ponty first discovered
Hyper Being in Phenomenology of Perception. He called it the Hyper-dialectic
between Process Being and Nothingness. It was also discovered by Heidegger and
called Being (crossed out) which was subsequently made a center of a philosophy by
Derrida who called it DifferAnce. Heidegger also talks about it in terms of
“appropriation” which he names by “IT gives.” Wild Being was discovered by
Merleau-Ponty in his The Visible and the Invisible. However, we can see in
retrospect that Heidegger was talking about Wild Being when he delineated the
“fourfold” of the world in ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ following Socrates. It was
first made the center of a philosophy by Deleuze and Guattari in their Anti-Oedipus
and A Thousand Plateaus. It was explored by Loy in Non-Duality under the rubric
of Asian Philosophies relation to Western philosophy and by John S. Hans in The
Play of the World. Recently Arkady Plotnitsky has made headway deepening our
understanding of this philosophical meta-level in his works Complementarity,
Reconfigurations and In the Shadow of Hegel. All of these meta-levels of Being have
been explored to various degrees during this century in which the fragmentation of
Being has occurred. But what is not generally realized is that these different kinds of
Being work together to form the substrate of ideation and that they are revealed
beyond the veil of our projection of the dualism of physus and logos when we
consider the ontological groundings of our knowledge and its connection to the
world through our very being-in-that-world. We can separate out the kinds of Being
from the tradition by realizing the meta-levels of Being in the following series:
199
Figure 63:
beingsa entities things
Pure Being Being Static Plenum of Illusory

Continuity
Process Being Being of Being Monolith of Process and
Static Being (Parmenides +
Heraclitus)
Hyper Being Being of ‘Being of Being’ IT Gives . . .
Wild Being Being of “Being of ‘Being of Being’” Fourfold of the World
a. cf. Vail, L.M. [1972] Heidegger and Ontological Difference. University Park, Penn. State University
Press.
Parmenides describes the fourfold in his fateful statement interpreted by

Heidegger as:
Figure 64:
It is necessary: Saying and also Thinking: beings : Being
It Gives Fourfold |>>monolith<<|
Appropriation Worlding IS is
Hyper Being Wild Being Process & Pure Being

Figure 65: Sameness and Dynamism
SYSTEM
• Pure Presence -- homeostatic
dissipative special system
• Process Being -- homeodynamic
autopoietic special system
• Hyper Being -- heterostatic
reflexive special system
• Wild Being -- heterodynamic
META-SYSTEM
A genuine emergent event must traverse all four of the meta-levels of Being
in the process of its manifestation within the world. This is because an emergent
eventity is a particular integral synthesis of these four different kinds of Being. The
emergent eventity embodies its own stages of coming into Being in its very structure.
These stages relate to the different modalities of our being-in-the-world. Only the
emergent event can decenter the whole world and cause a transition to a new world
complete with a new future and a new past. The emergent event relates to our whole
200
being because through it our human essence is transformed. The appearance of

genuinely new things in the world changes who we are as well as the world and our
relationship to it. It is our essence as ‘dasein’ to ecstatically project the world. We
can relate to every thing within the world through the four kinds of Being. Emergent
events integrate all our ways of relating to the world and decenter our world
changing both the projector and what is projected. Emergent events can either arise
from within us as our creativity or outside us as brand new phenomena that are seen
for the first time. The direction of the emergent event is not relevant. What is relevant
is that it not only transmutes our world by displacing all the diacritical relations
between things but also it transmutes us because it changes who we are
fundamentally. We ‘are’ the ones who have projected the new world that contains
the new emergent eventity. We are the ones that have released one world and
grabbed onto another one and in the process took an unexpected tack that changed
both the future and the past in one fell swoop. This leap is the unfolding of the
implicate order talked about by David Bohm in the proto-gestalt.
At the reflexive octononic special system level this possibility of emergence

appears as the confluence of the possibility of both creation and annihilation
established at the level of the real and complex numbers and the systems that can be
expressed via analogies with their algebras. But also in the confluence between the
loss of associative and commutative properties. The ‘Magician’ Self-Generating
Systems described by Goertzel have the property of synthesizing the different kinds
of Being in a single model. From that we learn that the loss of commutative property
produces the emergent characteristic of mutual action in ‘Magician’ Self-Generating
Systems. And the loss of the associative properties produces the emergent
characteristic of gestalt patterns which is essentially the production of social
patterns. In an emergent events there is the creation of one world and the destruction
of another world. Each of these worlds are characterized by the mutual actions of
things and the gestalt formation of patterns. There is an inner transmutation of the
patterns and behavioral complexes in the jump from one world to another. The jump
from the old world with its past and future to the new world with a different past and
future is a process that ends up shifting from one Purely Present regime of
manifestation to another. This jump is a discontinuity and thus has the essential
nature of Hyper Being. We can only see the jump on the background of the
continuous that exemplify Process Being. But in the jump itself there is a wild and
chaotic point of departure into an unexpected turn of events and a counter intuitive
state of affairs. Thus the different kinds of Being do not just describe ideation but the
transformational effects of ideation which adapt to the utterly new and completely
unheard of and totally surprising aspects of existence. All this appears under the
rubric of the reflexive that upwells as the social substrata (what Deleuze and Guattari
call the socius). The reflexive brings the social into existence and this last key
element makes it possible for emergence to appear which reveals the inner coherence
of ideation and makes the kinds of Being visible beyond the hierarchy of the meta-
201
levels of change/learning.
8. Recursive Sedenion317 Meta-Systems

Each of the special systems can be seen as a partial meta-system. When the
series of alternating division algebras end then we graduate into the pure meta-
system where linearity gives way to circularity by the loss of the division property.
That loss of the division property causes the emergent properties of interpenetration
to arise within the meta-system. The meta-system is a field of complementarities of
complementarities ad infinitum and is represented by the various non-division
algebras that may be created by applying the Cayley-Dickson process iteratively ad
infinitum. This results in the embodiment of Pascal’s triangle by algebraic objects
like the imaginary numbers in successive progressive bisections or projections.
These higher structures lack the properties we consider interesting in algebra. But
that very lack makes them perfect for modeling interpenetration. The obverse of a
lack of division is ‘fusion318’ and that is what interpenetration signifies. The
Sedenion may be seen as a conjunction of octonions. These octonions are non-
associative319 but continue to support the possibility of division and the distributive
property within themselves. But this property is subsumed320 within the overall
structure of the Sedenion. The Sedenion contains fifteen virtual octonions that are the
shadows of the two conjuncted octonions that gives rise to the Sedenion. Of these
fifteen octonions three are special. Those three represent ultra-efficacious worlds
where showing and hiding (i.e. Manifestation of Being) vanishes. Those worlds
merely exist. Existence is the absence of showing or hiding relations. The twelve
other worlds, and each octonion may be seen as a possible world, all have showing
and hiding structures in which when you show some aspect of the world then another
aspect vanishes. Thus the twelve other worlds represent the shadow of the ultra-
efficacious worlds. And those ultra-efficacious worlds represent the inside of the
quaternion structure. In other words, the closed quaternion formation which shows
us how every part can contain the whole still remains closed. But at the Sedenion
level we discover three special worlds that have a special relation to each other that
allows us to “see inside” the quaternion and see that each quaternion formation
contains three parts that are themselves whole worlds321. Thus at the Sedenion level
arises the crucial difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. Here we
think of enlightenment as the embodiment of social ‘flow’ within a society. Social
317. Or higher non-division algebra.

318. This ‘fusion’ of interpenetration does not produce a unity.
319. Schafer, R.D. [1966] An Introduction to Non-associative Algebras. New York, Academic Press.
320. Islands of distribution and division remain immersed in the non-distributive non-divisible, i.e. fused soup of the sedenion or
higher level non-division algebras.
321. By virtue of the fact that from the outside they look like a quaternion imaginary but from the inside they can be seen as octo-
nions. This means that autopoietic special systems have reflexive fields both outside them and inside them. They are ut-
terly immersed in reflexivity.
202
flow being the analog to psychological flow within consciousness. That experience
of psychological flow is how we experience ultra-efficacity within consciousness.
So too, it is experienced in society by the embodiment of social flow that we see
whenever a team ‘clicks’ on a project. Social flow takes us into the ultra-efficacious
worlds. These are the worlds of existence (non-showing and non-hiding) and away
from the showing and hiding of the twelve worlds of normal efficiency. These
worlds show up in myth as the time of Kronos and in many other forms322
throughout world mythology where the world takes on an ultra-efficacious modality.
The time of Kronos was the golden age when toil was not necessary. That age is
actually a possibility for every world. It is possible for us to snap into a world of
social flow in which there are ultra-efficiencies and ultra-effectivenesses that do not
just effect special systems within the world but in which the whole world is a special
system.323 In that world Being in all its kinds vanishes because neither showing nor
hiding any longer occur in the same way and instead all that exists is that which is
neither shown nor hidden which the Buddhists called ‘Thusness’ or ‘Suchness’. So
Leibniz was right there is a best of all possible worlds, but it has no Being. Thus, the
world we live in that has Being is not it. What he was wrong about was that there was
only one best of all possible worlds. There are in fact at the Sedenion level only
fifteen possible worlds and three of them are ‘best’ in the sense of ultra-efficiency/
ultra-effectiveness and lack of showing and hiding or unadulterated existence.
Social Phenomenology starts from the premise that the social comes before all
other experiences. And within the social it is the experience of social flow that is the
sine quo non of all social experience. In resonance the external and internal
unconscious become unified while alienation and anomie vanish. This is the
experience of pure resonance and synchroniety between the members of the socius.
This experience was called the ‘fused group’ by Sartre in The Critique of Dialectical
Reason and the ‘pack’ by Elias Cannetti in Crowds and Power. This fundamental
experience of communal consciousness in perfect rapport is supported by the
mathematics of the Sedenion which singles out three octonions as different from the
other twelve. Those octonions correspond to reflexive worlds among the special
systems. Those particular reflexive worlds can be fully engulfed by synchroniety in
which the showing and hiding of Being vanishes. This can happen to whole groups
as Sartre and Canetti describe. We may describe the Sedenion as a mirrorhouse of
mirrorhouses. The three special worlds within that mirrorhouse have no distortion in
322. For instance we could interpret the “Kingdom of the Heaven” refered to by Jesus as indicating these three quaternionic ultra-
efficacious worlds. See Marvin Meyer [1992] The Gospel of Thomas : the hidden sayings of Jesus. Translation, with in-
troduction, critical edition of the Coptic text & notes by Marvin Meyer ; with an interpretation by Harold Bloom. 1st ed.
San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco.
323. An example of this was Medina during the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, during
which arose the most perfect of communities which surrounded him. See Lings, M. [1983] Muhammad: his life based on
the earliest sources. N.Y. Inner Traditions International, Ltd. Another example is the community founded in Subsaharan
Africa by Uthman Dunfolio.
203
their mirrors while the others have distortions that generate showing and hiding
relations between things that we call Being. Within the meta-mirrorhouse there are
subtle breaks between the octonions where the division property breaks down so that
there is a fusion of the plural worlds with each other. As we go on from the sedenion
which has sixteen imaginaries to the 32-nion, 64-nion, 128-nion we see worlds
within worlds that we would expect in the pluriverse. These worlds are fused and at
the same time separate as they exist in Indra’s net of interpenetration.
Interpenetration hides behind the complementarity of dualities within the meta-
system. Duality points toward the inexpressible non-dual state beyond the
complementarity that cannot be known cognitively and ultimately does not have any
Being due to its intrinsic emptiness. Emptiness is the flip side of interpenetration.
Because each thing is empty, it can thus interpenetrate with all other things that
interdependently arose with it. Emptiness is the true nature of existence. What is not
shown or hidden is the emptiness of the things. What cannot be shown nor hidden is
the interpenetration of all things. Enlightenment in the Buddhist sense is the
realization that there is no difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment,
just as there is no difference between ultra-efficacious worlds and normal worlds at
the octonion level but this distinction arises only within the context of the Sedenion.
There are worlds within worlds within worlds as we follow Pascal’s triangle in the
iteration of the Cayley-Dickson process of unfolding of each new level of imaginary
complexity. Indra’s net is vast. But within it is the possibility of local continuities
and those appear as the special systems within worlds and at the level of the world
there are the three special worlds that are ultra-efficacious. We call these worlds
within worlds within worlds and take this as the key emergent at the level of the
Sedenion. Reflexive systems form the mirror house by reflecting distorted multiple
mirrors. At the recursive level there is the opening to discontinuity that is given by
the break in the linearity of the imaginary timestreams. This gives us cyclical time.
These cycles are called in Buddhism the wheel of Samsara or Birth and Death. As
discontinuities open up across time instead of between time streams we look through
them directly at the emptiness beyond the imaginary continuities that we project on
existence that gives the illusion of persistence or Being.
204
Notes on Sedenions:
This is the multiplication table for sedenioins in 1ijkEIJKSTUVWXYZ notation:
1 i j k E I J K S T U V W X Y Z
1 1 i j k E I J K S T U V W X Y Z
i i -1 k -j I -E -K J T -S -V U -X W Z -Y
j j -k -1 i J K -E -I U V -S -T -Y -Z W X
k k j -i -1 K -J I -E V -U T -S -Z Y -X W
E E -I -J -K -1 i j k W X Y Z -S -T -U -V
I I E -K J -i -1 -k j X -W Z -Y T -S V -U
J J K E -I -j k -1 -i Y -Z -W X U -V -S T
K K -J I E -k -j i -1 Z Y -X -W V U -T -S
S S -T -U -V -W -X -Y -Z -1 i j k E I J K
T T S -V U -X W Z -Y -i -1 -k j -I E K -J
U U V S -T -Y -Z W X -j k -1 -i -J -K E I
V V -U T S -Z Y -X W -k -j i -1 -K J -I E
W W X Y Z S -T -U -V -E I J K -1 -i -j -k
X X -W Z -Y T S V -U -I -E K -J i -1 k -j
Y Y -Z -W X U -V S T -J -K -E I j -k -1 i
Z Z Y -X -W V U -T S -K J -I -E k j -i -1
In the 16x16 table,

the upper left 1x1 gives a table for R, (real)
the upper left 2x2 gives a table for C, (complexnion)
the upper left 4x4 gives a table for Q, (quaternion)
and the upper left 8x8 gives a table for O. (octonion)
Lohmus, Paal, and Sorgsepp (op.cit.) note that if you use the
Cayley-Dickson procedure to double the octonions to
get the sedenions, you retain the properties
common to all Cayley-Dickson algebras:
centrality if xy = yx for all y in the algebra A,

then x is in the base field of A,
which is the real numbers R;
simplicity no ideal K other than {0} and the algebra A,

or, equivalently,
if for all x in K and for all y in A
xy and yx are in K,
then K = {0} or A;
flexibility (x,y,z) = (xy)z - x(yz) = -(z,y,x)

or, equivalently, (xy)x = x(yx) = xyx ;
power-associativity (xx)x = x(xx) and ((xx)x)x = (xx)(xx)

or, equivalently, x^m x^n = x^(m+n) ;
Jordan-admissibility
xoy = (1/2)(xy + yx) makes a Jordan algebra;
degree two
205
xx - t(x)x + n(x) = 0
for some real numbers t(x) and n(x) ;
derivation algebra G2 for octonions and beyond;
and squares of basic units = -1 .
For sedenions, you lose the following properties:
the division algebra (over R) property

xy = 0 only if x =/= 0 and y =/= 0 ;
(A concrete example of zero divisors in terms of that basis
is given by Guillermo Moreno in q-alg/9710013:
(e1 + e10)(e15 - e4) = -e14 - e5 + e5 + e14 = 0.)
linear alternativity
(x,y,z) = (xy)z - x(yz) = (-1)P(Px,Py,Pz)
where P is a permutation of sign (-1)P ;
and the Moufang identities

(xy)(zx) = x(yz)x
(xyx)z = x(y(xz))
z(xyx) = ((zx)y)x .
For sedenions, you retain the following properties:
anticommutativity of basic units xy = -yx;
and nonlinear alternativity of basic units

(xx)y = x(xy) and (xy)y = x(yy).
Taken from Tony Smith’s homepage at

URL http://galaxy.cau.edu/tsmith/sedenion.html
9. General Meta-Systems Theory and the Theory of Emergent Worlds

The sedenion is only one of a myriad non-division algebras produced by the
Cayley-Dickson process. We define the algebraic models for meta-systems to be any
non-division algebra from the sedenion on down through the whole of Pascal’s
triangle which is of infinite extent. We call the production of this infinite structure of
non-division algebras ‘recursion’ and refer to the meta-system images produced as
recursive meta-systems. This leads us to propose a General Meta-systems Theory
(GMT) which is the opposite of General Systems Theory an example of which is that
constructed by George Klir in his Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. We
must carefully distinguish this General Meta-systems Theory from what we have
called Emergent Meta-systems. The EMS is image of the interaction between the
static balance of autopoietic special systems and the dynamic balance of the
combination of the reflexive and dissipative special systems. This interaction
appears as the cycle we have described which by symmetry breaking moves from the
206
real up through the hyper-complex algebras but returns to the real by XOR when it
reaches the sedenion level. If instead of cycling within the hyper-complex division
algebra domain we break free into the infinite production of even lower non-division
algebras then we enter the realm of General Meta-systems Theory. In the Pascal
triangle produced by the Cayley-Dickson process there are infinite images of meta-
systems of any complexity you desire. All of these images exemplify
interpenetration through the ‘fusion’ gained by the loss of division. The whole set of
these images is seen as a representation of the jeweled net of Indra which is the
symbol of the ultimate state of interpenetration of all things developed in Hua Yen
Buddhism. Ultimately, no matter how many things we consider to exist in the
universe, for instance all the fundamental particles or all the quarks, there is a non-
division algebra at some level of the Pascal triangle which corresponds to that
complexity of meta-systemic environment. At whatever complexity we want to
focus there is a meta-systemic representation close at hand defining the threshold of
complexity that we should use in considering the multiplicity of the phenomena on
which we have focused. Thus, General Meta-Systems Theory is truly general
because it gives us a model for any level of phenomena we want to consider as an
interpenetrating field. General Systems Theory deals with the figure on this ground
which we call the social gestalt of the system. Special Systems Theory tells us the
quantal steps by which we move from the figure of the System to the background of
the Meta-system. Special Systems Theory describes very peculiar ultra-efficacious
and anomalous kinds of Systems, that may arise when we are in the halfway houses
between the System and the Meta-system views of phenomena. As we have seen we
can take this way of looking at things and blow it up, or shrink it down, to produce
various emergent ontological levels such as domains, worlds, kosmos, pluriverse or
form, pattern, monad and facet. These ontological levels form an autopoietic ring
that we can think of as a torus. They encapsulate the ontic emergent levels that are
discovered after utter reductionism fails. We can think of these as nested tori within
the torus. Each level corresponds to a certain speed of clock at which it operates in
nature. When we take this tori and expand it into the fourth dimension then we find
the kind of mirroring we have described as occurring between the social and
individual psychological emergent levels between suchness and the absolute. The
hyper-torus unifies the various sets of emergent levels we have described as making
up our model of the world. There is a surgical operation by which it is possible to
make a torus into a kleinian bottle. One cuts the torus and then infolds one end of the
cut torus, then one moves the other end through the side of the torus until it can be
glued back to the envaginated other end of the cut torus. So there is a surgical
operation by which we can move from any level of hyper-torus to any level of hyper-
kleinian bottle. Thus, there is an operation by which we may turn our model of the
world as hyper-torus into a model of the social relations because we recognize the
relation between the kleinian bottle and the autopoietic systems as models of
individuals. The hyper-kleinian is a model of social relations at the boundary or
event horizon of the paradoxical. It is the dual of the model of the social taken in
207
terms of interpenetration that occurs at the reflexive level represented by the

octonion hyper-complex algebra. As we move out from the equation between the
autopoietic system as octonion or as kleinian bottle, we find that it is possible to
construct images that either tend toward the paradoxical, i.e. in terms of hyper-
kleinian bottles, or those that tend toward the supra-rational, i.e. in terms of octonion
hyper-complex algebras. But both of these series of models may be seen as relating
to the picture of the world as hyper-torus containing a central three dimensional torus
made up of nested sub-tori. By a surgical operation we can convert between hyper-
kleinian bottle and hyper-torus. It is also well known that a fundamental model of the
dynamics of chaotic systems is the torus which might represent the dynamics of a
pendulum within a pendulum, for instance. The dynamic field of the torus can break
up into chaos easily. That chaos can exemplify the operations of the strange attractor.
A strange attractor has infinite information within it and exemplifies the dual of the
continuum. We know that the Emergent Meta-system is a model of chaotic systems
of infinite complexity. The Emergent meta-system is composed of the interrelations
of the various special systems. These special systems are described by the hyper-
complex algebras. So in this way we see that there is via the collapse of the tori into
chaos, a route to understanding how the tori is related to the hyper-complex algebras.
The illusory continuity of the tori itself must break up in order to make this
connection possible. The shattering of illusory continuity by the breaking up of time
into various timestreams with imaginary inter-transformations produces a
completely different view of the social in which resonance rather than reified
structure is emphasized. In this way we see how our model of the hyper-complex
algebras, the hyper-tori of the world model and the hyper-kleinian bottles all inter-
relate to give us a view of the complex and fascinating interrelations between the
social and the world. The social has two images, one is the event horizon of the
sphere of ambiguity while the other is the reflexivity of the octonion. Both of these
images of the social can be related by appropriate transformations to our model of
the world as hyper-tori. In this way we can see that the social and the world are
interrelated by complex and interesting transformations which are not obvious. We
talk about that complex and interesting transformational interaction in terms of the
projection or construction of the world. However it might well be that we should
change our image and begin to understand the world as constructed out of the same
fabric as the social. That rare and numinous fabric can be inter-transformed from
hyper-tori to hyper-kleinian or inter-transformed through immersion in chaotic
discontinuity with the reflexive supra-rational properties of the special systems and
meta-systems. General Meta-systems theory encompasses all of these inter-
transformations and provides us with a general framework for understanding all
projections of worlds of any complexity.
It is necessary to distinguish between General Meta-Systems theory and the

theory of worlds proper. The theory of worlds is described by Nelson Goodman in
Ways of Worldmaking.324 He speaks about several ways of worldmaking:
208
• Composition and Decomposition

• Weighting
• Ordering
• Deletion and Supplementation
• Deformation
We note that Husserl’s phenomenology is based on expansion and contraction

of objects in the imagination in order to explore the constraints on essences. Igvar
Johannson suggests that we can use slicing of objects instead in order to explore their
internal coherences. Goodman says that he has described several ways of
worldmaking but does not claim that this is a complete list. But what we note is that
all the ways of worldmaking involve kinds of transformation of objects at the meta-
essence level, i.e. at the level of Hyper Being. We have described two of these in
order to understand how the fabric of the world can turn into the two views of the
social, either from the supra-rational side, i.e. reflexive special systems, or the
paradoxical side, as the event horizon for the sphere of ambiguity at the center of the
hyper-kleinian bottle. The transformations we needed were topological surgery and
dynamical collapse into chaos. Self-binding surgery is what produces the series of
topological anomalous structures of lemniscate, mobius strip, kleinian bottle, etc in
the first place. The dynamics of chaos is what lies behind our model of the Emergent
Meta-system which eschews continuity for discontinuity. Notice surgery assumes
the existence of continuity before it introduces its disruptions and re-glues to create
strange and anomalous forms. Emergent Meta-systems assume discontinuity from
the very beginning and attempt to explain continuity rather than vice versa. So when
we move back and forward between our various mathematical analogies we are
employing various ways of worldmaking in order to talk about the worlds arising
through the surface of the chaos of Wild Being from the sea of meta-systems. This
leads us to posit a Theory of Worlds based on the General Meta-systems Theory.
Meta-systems give us the basic empty substrata of interpenetration upon which our
worldmaking transformations operate. The Theory of Worlds produces myriad
worlds from this empty “stuff” of interpenetration by various types of
transformations that operate at the level of meta-essences. In order for this to occur
the “stuff” must come through the interspace from Existence into Being, i.e. arise in
Wild Being to be operated on in Hyper Being. All the various levels of meta-systems
are a model of existence. It is not until one gets to the level of hyper-complex
algebras that we simultaneously enter into the realm of the kinds of Being and the
different sorts of ultra-efficacious special systems. The kinds of Being are the
differentiation of the paradox of Being. The special systems are the images of the
supra-rational that segment the kinds of Being. They mutually define each other. The
Theory of Worlds speaks about how this process by which worlds arise occurs. No
matter how many worlds you imagine there is some level of the Pascal Triangle that
324. Goodman, N. [1978] Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Pub.Co. See pages 7-17
209
embodies the relations between all of their most fundamental existents. But we bring
these worlds into existence via the meta-essence level transformations we apply to
these existents. This simultaneously brings them into Being and allows them to be
ultra-efficacious until they are reified into the social gestalts of systems in which they
enter the restricted economy of entropy. We may produce myriad worlds in this
fashion or understand the transformations of our own designated as real, true,
identical or present world. All transformations occur at the level of meta-essence, i.e.
at the level of Hyper Being, on materials that at least have Wild Being, i.e. chaotic
infrastructure. Our world is transformed when an emergent event occurs. Such an
event is when an existent appears within our world and moves through all the levels
of Being until it reaches Pure Being. The existent first takes on the veil of Wild Being
and becomes an enigma with propensities. Then, it takes on the veil of Hyper Being
and becomes a meta-essence which has fuzziness which we query. Then, it takes on
the veil of Process Being and becomes an essence with probabilities when it
actualizes which we project as Dasein. Then, it takes on the veil of illusory continuity
in Pure Being which has determinate characteristics that we see as an object by our
subjectivity. These stages of the realization of the emergent event by which some
level of our tradition is transformed utterly by the genuinely novel and new, are the
same stages by which the myriad worlds can be produced. Instead of an object
coming into the world from existence we have a whole world arising through the
various stages of ascent out of existence. The meta-systems have levels within the
Pascal triangle to support a world of any complexity in arising. Worlds arise in the
same way that individual emergent objects arise. At first there is some level of
complexity in the Pascal triangle that is designated as the level needed for a
particular world. Then the existents of the world take on the veil of Wild Being and
are seen as a chaotic mass. But immediately they achieve the ultra-efficacious
qualities of the reflexive special system and thus form a basic supra-rational social
fabric. In that fabric the existents exhibit propensities that are enigmatic. We note
that there are Mandelbrot like sets at the levels of quaternion and octonion. Onar
Aam was first to create images of Octonion Mandelbrot sets which we might call
“Aambrot” sets325. Such images are calculated by the speed at which individual
points escape to infinity, which is a mathematical representation of what Deleuze and
Guattari call a “line of flight”. Thus at the Wild Being level the world is made up of
various lines of flight which exhibit a propensity. Existents are trapped in the magma
of their fundamental indeterminacy as Castorialis calls it. They form a heterarchical
rhizome which is “heterogeniously interactive and interactively heterogenious” as
Arkady Plotnitsky would have it. John S. Hans speaks of the play of the world and
its aesthetic dimension. The social ultra-efficacious field operates on the reflexive
field of enigmas which exhibit what Coutu calls tendencies in situations at the level
of Wild Being. The social field itself is like Cannetti’s pack or Sartre’s fused group.
At this level it is impossible to separate the existents from the members of the social
325. These can be seen on his web page. op. cit.
210
field itself. Everything arises from the social and thus we found a social
phenomenology to study what arises from that fundamental infrastructure of our
world. All worlds are social worlds. Only social beings propose worlds and project
them and designate them as real, present, true and identical. But worldmaking occurs
fundamentally when we take this chaotic substrata of the world from Wild Being and
attempt to transform it by some ways of worldmaking by producing meta-essences.
At this point we move from Wild Being into Hyper Being. The world stops being
Chaotic and becomes Fuzzy. The fuzzy meta-essences yield an autopoietic ultra-
efficaciousness. Autopoietic systems are formed as the balance point for the world
out of the reflexive field. As we imagine it all individual organisms that project
worlds appear from a social milieu. Those social organisms are the centers of the
vortex of the world or the pivot upon which the ecstasy of the projection of the world
occurs. This can also be seen in terms of the collapse into nothingness which is the
dual of Process Being that Sartre imagined in Being and Nothingness. There is a
hyper-dialectic between Process Being and Nothingness which Merleau-Ponty
described in The Visible and the Invisible. The cancellation of Process Being and
Nothingness yields Wild Being. But prior to cancellation there is the indecidablity of
Hyper Being, and it is within that realm that autopoietic unities arise. These unities
attempt to distinguish supra-rationally and maintain their boundaries in relation to all
the other images that appear in the reflexive mirroring environment of the social. If
they get lost in the false and distorted multiplicity of images then they fall into
nihilism. At the level of Hyper Being the differences between the meta-essence
differentiations into individual essences is undecidable. The anomalies at this level
are the Godelian statements whose truth cannot be known within the system that is
being projected. All autopoietic systems have Godelian statements, i.e. non-nihilistic
distinctions by which they maintain their boundaries in relation to all the images of
themselves and others in the reflexive social environment. The Godelian statement
is the kernel of a meta-essence with reference to truth. Similar things326 exist in
relation to identity, presence and reality. They are things that cannot be discriminated
whether they are inside or outside the boundary of the system. Such determinations
must be made either by nihilistic fait or by producing a non-nihilistic distinction. If
we make a decision concerning the fuzzy meta-essence and their inter-
transformations then we fall into Process Being and the embodiment as a dissipative
system. Such a special system can either be a desiring machine or a disseminating
machine. At this level there are probabilistic essences of ontic eventities within the
world projected by dasein immersed in a particular mitsein327. Now we enter a stage
of worldbuilding that we can relate to because we are surrounded by eventities that
326. A “Thing” is an Old English term for a social gathering. It is at a social gathering that the social gestalt is created that deter-
mines whether something is inside or outside the boundary of a particular autopoietic system. This is normally concerned
with the distribution of rights and responsibilities within a social milieu. This leads us down the path of exploring the
various levels of non-duality called law & order, right & responsibility, the good, and the fated.
327. being-with others.
211
essence forth. At this level of worldbuilding we can recognize the excrescences

produced by nihilism and contrast those with the ideal holoidal state of perfect
operator-operand (noun-verb) coincidence. We can recognize the epochs in which
the world remains the same and the novum of the emergent events that transform the
meta-essence infrastructure of the world. We can also recognize the holonomic
character of the world, and the integrity of things that occur due to the synergies that
appear because the world comes out of the meta-system. All the trigrams of Being
are recognizable at the level where the world takes on particular essences.
Figure 66: Trigrams of the aspects of Being328
Holoid
Noun/Verb Unity
true
identical
real
{Epidoclus’ love}
totality as unity
Holon Integra
true true
identical different
illusory illusory
Novum the non-nihilistic Epoch

true distinction is the cen- false
ter point of the tri-
different identical
grams of Being.
real illusory
Essencing Eventity
false false
identical different
real real
Ephemeron
false
illusory
different
{Epidoclus’ strife}
excressences
Eventually our arising world falls into Pure Being where everything within it
becomes determinate. In that world we become subjects who apprehend objects. In
such a world we build formal structural systems theories concerning the objects we
find there as we produce various social gestalts in our social phenomenology. This
world has become concrete and may be apprehended to have various ontic levels of
emergent properties after we have applied reductionism. All these ontic levels and
328. See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void: Fragment 12 “Unfolding Imaginary Being”.
212
the phenomena that appear at each of them may be seen using any of our emergent
ontological templates of comprehension. As we use those templates we are
individuals who process various emergent levels of information and find ourselves
embedded in a tradition with various emergent levels on which emergent events
might appear. As we think about our ontological templates of comprehension of our
world we imagine various combinations of those levels such as the formal structural
system and the meta-systemic world domains. The meta-systems are the basis for our
production of myriad worlds and their various synergetically related domains and
disciplines. This is the dual of the formal structural system such as that described by
Klir within the emergent ontological hierarchy. In order to situate any given formal
structural system it is necessary to provide the context of meta-systemic world
domains. Out of environmental meta-systems we socially construct or project worlds
which contain domains by which we segment the phenomena that we find within the
worlds. Without a General Meta-systems Theory and a Theory of Emergent Worlds
it is not possible to situate the phenomena we describe by our Formal Structural
Systems Theory. Thus, both the General Meta-systems Theory and the Emergent
Worlds Theory become crucial for our full realization of the social phenomenology
by which we describe what appears within our worlds. It is also the basis for the
founding of virtual worlds such as may appear within the medium of cyberspace.
10. Ultra-Efficacious Special Systems

The key feature of the special systems is their ultra-efficiency. This is to say
that they unexpectedly bring four dimensional rotations into the three dimensional
realm and violate our expectations by giving us the apparent equivalent to perpetual
motion machines that we normally think of as impossible, but which are indeed
actualized either physically or logically. Within four dimensional or higher
dimensional space it is well known that perpetual motion is a possibility because
rotations blocked in three dimensional mechanical devices are possible in that realm.
And, of course, we know that we live in a four dimensional spacetime realm but we
normally relate to it via our concepts of three dimensional space segregated from
time. But what the special systems make clear is that nested within our three
dimensional projections, we can on a rare occasion access the implicit four
dimensionality of the underlying spacetime substrate. When this occurs then we get
phenomena that violate our general rules as to how things work. But these violations
that appear as anomalies are just as real as the entropic norms we project upon
existence. It is in the deep nesting of phenomena that the four dimensional rotations
appear that give rise to unexpected ultra-efficiencies. The discovery of these ultra-
efficiencies is always an emergent event within the realm of normal science that
leads to revolutionary paradigm changes.
Two examples of such ultra-efficiencies that violate our expectations are

solitons and super-conductivity. One of these is a macro-phenomena of unique
213
waves propagating in channels while the other is a micro-phenomena of electrical

conductivity in a lattice of particular types of molecules that only appears close to
absolute zero but recently has been found also at or about the freezing point of
nitrogen. In both cases there is a special circumstance that produces the unexpected
ultra-efficiency in a limited region of space-time and the study of these special
circumstances lead to a major refinement of our understanding of the forces of
nature. Soliton solutions have been found in many basic physical equations, like the
Schroninger Equation, and many different kinds of chemical compounds are found
to have super-conductive properties. Both of these phenomena are ultra-efficient, but
this ultra-efficiency has not been related to any general theory. The theory of the
special systems now claims to be the underlying general theory of ultra-efficiency.
It describes how four dimensional rotations enter into systems and introduce a
nesting that allows an access to the underlying four dimensional substrate beneath
our projection of three dimensional spatial constructs on existence. This access to the
underlying four dimensionality is gained by the bifurcation of the timestreams within
the system so that the conjunction of the different timestreams produces the ultra-
efficient effects that we see in our experiments. In each case the underlying
mechanism will be different. For super-conductivity it is the arising of Cooper pairs
that communicate via phonons, which are the vibrations of the lattice of atoms they
are traveling through. In the case of solitons it is the reflections of the solitary wave
off the bottom of the channel through which they are traveling. But in each case the
ultra-efficiency arises from a synthesis of the different kinds of Being as represented
in a particular configuration of the logos/physus dichotomy as it is applied to
particular phenomena. This means that in every case of ultra-efficiency there is a
mapping between the phenomena one of the ultra-efficient special systems that have
analogies with the hyper-complex algebras. The mapping of super-conductivity is to
the autopoietic special system where the Cooper pairs act like a closed pair of
dissipative systems. In the case of the soliton the mapping is to the dissipative system
where the reflection of the wave form off the channel gives an Escher waterfall-like
effect in which the reflected energy of the wave out is used to keep the wave going
beyond what we might expect.
The discovery of a general theory of ultra-efficient systems is a major advance

in General Systems Theory which now covers the special cases of formation/
patterning, living/cognitive and social/psychological effects. Now sociology and
psychology can be grounded in a particular form of mathematical analogy which will
allow them to be systematized in a way analogous to the systematization of the other
sciences. Other sciences take great advantage of mathematical analogies to advance
their understanding of phenomena. Now both sociology and psychology can follow
this same royal road of science but applying analogies to parts of mathematics that
physicists have not been able to apply very well. It is of interest that quaternions and
octonions have found little use in describing physical phenomena. But now we can
see that they have their use in describing the articulation of the Logos into its social
214
and psychological aspects.
Also until now autopoietic theory has been a backwater of the theory of living
and cognitive systems. It describes well the anomalies of these kinds of systems, but
as a theory has not been well accepted because the theory did not seem to have any
mathematical grounding. The realization that quaternions are the mathematical
grounding of autopoietic theory will go a long ways toward the production of
grounded representations that will allow us to build better models of autopoietic
systems. And we will no longer apply this theory haphazardly to social systems
because we know that we need to advance to the next emergent level in order to
describe social and psychological phenomena which unfold from, and are based on
the constraints of the living and cognitive autopoietic systems. Finally we realize that
the autopoietic systems are built out of dissipative systems and so there is a bridge
to normal non-dissipative physical phenomena. So it is now easy to understand the
steps by which the emergent living system must go through to evolve by a series of
discontinuous mutations or quantal jumps out of non-dissipative phenomena.
The theory of ultra-efficient phenomena unifies the field of studies that have
been so long dualistically separated. The physical phenomena have been described
quantitatively with great rigor until it hit the wall of quantum mechanics that set the
limits to application determinateness. The logos has been described mostly in
qualitative terms through the humanistic disciplines329 such as hermeneutics,
phenomenology, dialectics and structuralism. But now we realize that the realm of
logos has its own special systems and these have a direct connection to all other
systems through a certain series of emergent levels. The special systems and their
emergent levels in connection with the general theory of systems ties logos and
physus into a single mathematically described structure which then allows us to see
beyond that structure to the levels of Being that unify our projection of the world and
all the ramifications of the logos/physus dichotomy within out world.
We speak of ultra-efficiency but we actually mean the combination of ultra-

efficiency and ultra-effectiveness which we call ultra-efficacity following
Plotnitsky. Dissipative systems are highly efficient and effective because they
produce order from nowhere spontaneously and for free. Autopoietic systems are
ultra-efficient and ultra-effective because they trap the order production and allow it
to go on indefinitely. It is as if the ordering principle were reflecting around the
closed container of the autopoietic system. This is efficient because ordering and the
maintenance of order occurs spontaneously. It is effective because it maintains the
boundary in equilibrium and continual expansion is no longer necessary. Reflexive
329. The dual of these humanistic disciplines that project distance is ‘Heuristic Research’ which attempts to live within its topic
rather than approaching it from the outside. See Moustakas, Clark [1990] Heuristic Research. Newbruy Park CA, Sage
Publications.
215
systems are ultra-efficient and ultra-effective. This is because these systems self-
transform continuously spontaneously. This means that it is not just maintaining
order but continually renewing itself with a different emergent order. Here
emergence is for free. This is effective because it allows flexibility and adaptability
to radically and quickly changing environments. Thus, the dissipative system is
highly efficacious, the autopoietic system is ultra efficacious and the reflexive
system is ultra-efficacious. The efficaciousness at each level is the non-dual
reversible chiasmic point between efficiency and effectiveness. In Buddhism this is
called skillful means. For instance, the concept of enlightenment is a skillful means
in that it uses a meta-illusion to cure the soul which is sick with myriad illusions. The
concept of enlightenment is efficacious because it is an illusion at the same meta-
level as that of the self that can be used to annihilate the self. First the self as a system
cancels with the illusion of enlightenment, then we fall into the sea of meanings, and
then we realize the truth of the statement of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi al-Akbar that “man
is the little universe and the universe is the big man” at the reflexive level. Until
finally we glimpse the jeweled net of Indra which is all the levels of emptiness
combined in an anti-construction like the emergent meta-system formation.
11. Holonomics
But the access to the key characteristic of ultra-efficaciousness is not the only
thing that the theory of the special systems give us. It also gives us a clear view of
what Holonomics should really mean. That is Holonomics applies to the conjunction
of different timestreams and the splitting of the real number lines that are fully
ordered and represent illusory continuity in our description and measurement of
systems. When the single timestream bifurcates it goes through a series of symmetry
breakings that each has profound consequences for the intertransformation of
descriptions of systems. With each emergent algebraic level certain key
characteristics change and new ones are introduced so that there is a transmutation
of the basic constraints that our attempts of intertransfomation must operate under.
This means that unexpected four dimensional effects enter into the nesting of our
systems as they split into multiple timestreams that are described by hyper-complex
algebras. So nested within our general systems described by Klir’s general systems
theory are special systems descriptions that are radically different and non-intuitive
but which manifest as physical or logically discriminated phenomena. Through these
phenomena we discover the synthesis of the kinds of Being and have access to the
structure and unfolding of the emergent event.
Holons are the special meso-systems that arise between systems (as gestalts
and flows) and meta-systems (origins and arenas) which have parts that are held in
conjunction and which exist in relation to separate timestreams that are also in
conjunction. These strange quasi-wholes are exactly equal to the sum of their parts,
neither more (like the system) nor less (like the meta-system). Holons are neither part
216
nor whole but are at the same time both part and whole in a strangely beautiful
perfect balance. Their analogy are the perfect numbers330 whose parts add up to the
whole without remainder nor deficiency. Holons act like wholes from one point of
view and parts from another point of view so they fulfill the original Janus faced
characteristics of things that can be seen as wholes or parts depending on the
viewpoint on them. We note that the analogy of perfect numbers to holons can be
extended by the concept of amicable numbers and sociable numbers331. Amicable
numbers332 have sets of divisors that add up to each other. Sociable numbers are a
group of numbers that form a cycle in which progressively the sum of divisors adds
up to the next number in the series. Amicable numbers are an image of the
autopoietic special system which is two holons symbiotically related to each other.
Sociable numbers are an image of the reflexive special system which is a set of
holons that form a series. The most abundant of these are sets of four holons that are
mutually generating from their divisors in series. However the first such set of
sociable numbers has 5 elements and the second has 28 elements. After that there are
fifteen sets of four before we hit a set of nine and a set of eight. There are also sets
of six. The sequence is 5, 28, 15x4, 9, 8, 4, 8, 10x4, 6, 5x4, 6, 15x4 ... Sociable
numbers333 are an analogy for the reflexive special system made up of more than two
symbioticly related holons.
Having mathematical analogies for these strange special systems is a very

important advance because it gives us an access to the nomos that lies behind both
the physus and logos. It gives some grounding to our understanding of the counter
intuitive properties of dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive special systems based
on derivations from the mathematical properties of the algebras. And extensive
explorations of these implications show that the counter intuitive analogies with the
algebras are very revealing as to the nature and logic underlying the special systems
at all three emergent levels. This gives a mathematical grounding to the general
theory of holons, so we can now speak of a science directed at discovering ultra-
efficacious special systems based on a general theory of such systems which
explores the nomos that underlies conjunctive holons. So finally after many false
starts a new mathematically grounded science of holonomics is born which is
330. Such as 6, 28, 496, 8128, 130816, etc. Such numbers are the relations between elements at specific 2n heuristic levels such as
22, 23, 25, 27, 29. See http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/glossary/PerfectNumber.html
331. “An amicable pair is a cycle of length 2 of s, i.e., a pair of numbers each of which equals the sum of the other's aliquot parts;
the members of amicable pairs are also called amicable. The smallest such pair is (220,284).” David Moews
(dmoews@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu) See http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable.html See also http://www.utm.edu/
research/primes/glossary/AmicableNumber.html See also http://www.vejlehs.dk/staff/jmp/aliquot/knwnap.htm
332. http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable2.txt David Moews (dmoews@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu)
333. “The members of aliquot cycles of length greater than 2 are often called sociable numbers. The smallest two such cycles have
length 5 and 28, and were found early in this century by Poulet [POU]. Borho [BOR1969] constructed one of length 4 in
1969. Everything since has been found via computer search.” David Moews (dmoews@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu) See http:/
/xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/sociable.txt See also http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/glossary/SociableNumbers.html
217
directly connected to general systems theory and explicitly defines a series of

emergent levels that define strange special systems that defy our expectations based
on the norm of thermodynamic entropy. This norm is rarely, but still definitely
broken by specific phenomena in nature. Now we have a basis for tying these
phenomenal anomalies together and a hypothetical pattern to assist us in discovering
new ones.
Holonomics applies the Special Systems and Emergent Meta-systems theory

to phenomena. It goes beyond the dialectic between the Novum and the Epoch that
appear within the trigrams of Being. In other words it goes beyond the
comprehension of how the world transforms utterly as in the transformation between
the mythopoetic and metaphysical eras. Rather it focuses on the structure of the
emergent event itself and attempts to understand its holonic form as well as its
integrity. The question has been raised334 in the philosophy of consciousness
concerning the relation between qualia and the functional psychological capabilities
exhibited by consciousness. This becomes a question in all dualistic philosophies.
However, for non-dual philosophies such as our social phenomenology this is not a
difficult question. We recognize the dual of the holon as the integra. The integra is
what was called in Chinese philosophy, LI, i.e. principle/pattern. It is what lies
beyond kindness that appears in Wild Being. Li and Chi go together in the Chinese
view of the constitution of the world. Chi is the energy of unfolding transformation
and Li is the underlying principle of patterning which becomes exhibited in the
unfolding process. The Li of each individual existent is different as it essences forth
into existence expressing its Chi. This relation between the holon and its
intertransformation with other holons is encapsulated at this level of the trigrams of
Being. Quality and Quantity are related by means of the N2 to 2N intertransformation
symbolized by the Ho and Lo river maps related to the Trigrams in the I Ching. So
there is a specific intertransformation between quantity and quality that we spoke of
with respect to the emergent meta-system image that arises from the laws of form/
pattern via engagement and entanglement. Quality and Quantity refer back to a non-
dual integral holon exhibiting Li and Chi fused. So Qualia and the Functional aspects
of our psychology arise together from this non-dual holonomic source that provides
the bedrock of consciousness. Consciousness is a restricted economy of
intentionality. It is opposite the non-intentional Unconscious. Their relation is like
the relation between Pure Being and Hyper Being. Hyper Being is seen as the
unconscious of manifestation which is a more general way of looking at phenomena.
Between these two exist Process Being or we might say Awareness which is non-
intentional and in fact probabilistic. Awareness in this sense is neither conscious nor
non-conscious but is the field in which intentionality arises. But the antipode of
awareness is Wild Being in which the integral holons that exemplify the fusion of Li
334. Chalmers, D.J. [1996] The Conscious Mind: in search of a fundamental theory. New York :
Oxford University Press.
218
and Chi appear. Normally our culture is blind to this level of phenomena where the
qualia and the functional aspects of awareness interact. This blindness is exemplified
best in gender relations which when considered from the point of view of the kinds
of Being leads to an “Archetypal Gender Ontology335”. But all aspects of our world
can be seen in terms of the integral holons and their manifestation of Chi and Li.
These integral holons are both quantitative, i.e. discriminatable, and qualia at the
same time. From them arise our discriminations concerning invisible properties of
existence and the visible discriminations concerning qualia. When we go into that
inner unity of qualia and quanta we find the holoidal mirroring of the part in the
whole that is found in holograms that is an image of interpenetration.
Holonomics deals with all socially projected phenomena in terms of its

Integrity and Holoidal character. Thus holonomics is a discipline that understands
the seeming mystery of the arising of qualia within the expression of quanta. We
have described Plank’s quanta as the basis for the arising of the various levels of self-
intra-embedding. Each of these levels of intra-embedding of the self into the self
with various twists and gluings has its phenomenal character. The phenomenal
character of these quantal levels is intrinsic to their expression in existence because
existence is ultimately non-dual and encompassing all duals supra-rationally or
devolving into paradoxicality. Supra-rationality and paradoxicality spring from each
other in an unending dance that produces all the worlds. Holonomics studies the
character of this dance and the phenomena that appear within it in terms of their inner
integrity and their holoidal mirroring of the greater context of which they are a part.
The integra tells us about the Chi/Li Fusion of the individual thing while the Holoidal
Holographic quality of the individual shows how it mirrors the world. Social
Phenomenology has this level of subtlety that goes beyond the level of meta-
essences at which we tend to stop within the Western Indo-European tradition. But
other cultures did not have our own blindness to the level of Wild Being with its
articulation of Chi and Li. As specific examples we will describe the medical
disciplines of Homeopathy and Acupuncture which are traditional scientific
disciplines that deal with humans in terms of holoidal integral holons rather than
stopping at the level of meta-essences, i.e. the transformations in our physiologos or
logophysus due to imbalance and disease.
One way of understanding the position we are positing is to think of the radical
break posited between micro-quantum relativistic mechanical processes and our
common sensical Newtonian view of our mundane physical world. Also consider the
radical break between a view of the world that accepts qualia and those who do not
as an important consideration when looking at physical phenomena. Both of these
radical breaks work to preserve our Indo-European worldview. Consider now a view
that says that qualia and quantum phenomena are what is designated as real and that
335. Palmer, K. “Archetypal Gender Ontology” (manuscript)
219
the laws of physics as they appear in the Newtonian physics is epiphenomena, i.e.
reversing the normal position analytic materialists take on both ends of the spectrum.
This view says that things are quantal and that these quanta are inherently qualitative.
This is the macro-quantum mechanical view immersed in a social phenomenology.
It says that the normative Newtonian view is socially constructed in our worldview
and we are resisting dropping it by erecting dualistic positions with respect to physus
on the one hand and the logos of consciousness on the other hand. The non-dual view
takes what is incomprehensible on each side and posits that it is more real than the
normal Newtonian view. It posits that these boundaries are artificially constructed in
order to preserve a worldview that is fundamentally warped because of its basis on
Being rather than Existence. We posit that other worldviews did not have this
warpage and cite the Chinese traditional sciences and those of the Islamic tradition.
We give as examples of these Acupuncture and Homeopathy in what follows. The
reason we should take these disciplines seriously is that other cultures may have had
an inherently macro-quantum mechanical view of existence. In fact, we posit that all
cultures that do not have Being in their languages start out with this macro-quantum
mechanical and qualia centered non-dual view. It is Western culture because of its
dependence on Being rather than Existence that projects fundamentally different and
warped views on existence which cannot understand qualia and quanta despite those
being two of our most fundamental philosophical categories. We dualistically
separate them from each other and deny their intertransformability and fundamental
non-dual status. The very fact that they are dual category for us is the fundamental
source of the problem. We find the quanta in the physus when we go beyond the
illusory continuity of the calculus. We find the qualia in the logos of consciousness
after we have gone as far as we can in understanding the invisible cognitive features
of consciousness. Both of them are fundamentally incomprehensible for us in
different ways. You would think that the invisible aspects of consciousness would be
incomprehensible. You would think that the illusory continuity would be hard to
understand based as it is on transcendental numbers and various levels of Cantor
infinities. But instead it is the most visible aspect of consciousness and the quanta we
discover that evades the power of the calculus that we find incomprehensible. And
this is because of the dualistic structure of the Western worldview which privileges
transcendence which is at once invisible and projects illusory continuity and thus
bolsters subjectivity. What is visible and quantal contain discontinuity and it is this
discontinuity that we are attempting to avoid by our dualistic schemes. General
Systems Theory shares these widespread dualistic transcendental prejudices.
Emergent Meta-systems Theory and General Meta-systems theory confronts this
issue directly by privileging discontinuity instead and so we are led to emphasize the
visible (or generally sensible) which is full of discontinuity and the quantal at the
micophysical level. If we bring together these two inferiors in the dualistic schema
that first splits physus and logos and then draws copenhagen-like lines between us at
the ultimate phenomena of nature or consciousness then we achieve a view that is on
the face of it macro-quantum mechanical and qualitative at the same time. In this
220
view it is easy to see how we could find Li and Chi to be a significant distinction as
the Chinese did. The Chinese also had the concept of Shu or number or quanta. Each
quanta had its own Li which it exhibited by the unfolding of its Chi. Chi is the
unfolding we find both in Logos and Physus. It is a characteristic they both share that
is non-dual between them. The flow of Chi allows the individual to exemplify its
own unique patterning beneath the level of essence or meta-essence, i.e. at the level
of Wild Being. The source of that Pattern is Li and its exemplification in the
individual is also Li. Li has two specific senses of patterning in things and the
patterning principle which is the source of that patterning in things. Thus we
specifically have a marriage of quanta and qualia in the Chinese Tradition. The
qualia is thought of as the patterned Chi that is inseparable from the quanta in which
it appears because each quanta has a unique Li both in principle and in terms of
embodiment. We can understand that in our own worldview in terms of fractal
patterning along the lines of the Mandelbrot set where the escape velocities of
various points differ giving a unique patterning at any level of magnification. There
are macro-patterns within this fractal landscape which are unique at each point if we
only go to the next level of magnification. In other words each point has its own
disposition or propensity toward a velocity in its line of flight given when it is
iterated. Iteration is the quantal dimension. The qualitative dimension is given when
we assign a color to each velocity. When we look at the gestalts that appear in this
patterning we find swirling patterns that exemplify the Chi and Li. The swirling
patterns only come when we project across the landscape of the Mandelbrot set a
view which is not visible with respect to each point. But each point independently
contributes to this overall view. It contributes its qualia, i.e. its color coding. But the
color coding is randomly assigned based on the escape velocities that come from
iterating each point. Thus we can clearly see how quality and quantity are
intertwined. If we did not assign the colors we could not see the pattern. If we did not
iterate the points we could not see the pattern. Both assigning the colors and iterating
the points to find the velocity of escape differences are crucial to seeing the swirling
patterns. Chi and Li appear when we combine quality and quantity in this way as a
macro-phenomena which is unexpected and emergent. However on our view the
situation is reversed. Chi and Li are non-dual concepts that are prior to the arising of
the quality/quantity duality. The Mandelbrot set is there as an expression of Chi and
Li prior to our combining quality and quantity to see it. In this view there is a
Mandelbrot Li or principle of ordering unique to the Mandelbrot set which appears
uniquely in every area throughout the set. That ordering appears because different
points in the set have different propensities or dispositions. Those propensities or
dispositions or tendencies that become visible at the level of Wild Being form a field
which has Chi, or a dissipative patterning in accordance with the Li. We put that
patterning together and see the swirls with our combination of quality and quantity
that allows us to see it but it already exists in the Mandelbrot set or any of the sets
associated with quaternions or octonions such as the ‘Aambrot’ set. This phenomena
inherently combines the Chi, Li and Shu. Each point at whatever magnification is the
221
exemplification of Shu. Each point is discontinuous from all the others. When we do
self iteration on that point and assign colors we see the swirling patterns. Swirling
refers to the Chi of the area and the Patterning refers to the Li of the area. Swirling
patterns are there prior to our seeing them as an intrinsic mathematical field
phenomena that only exists in relation to the Complexnions, Quaternions and
Octonions as far as we know. We can generate fractal patterns and see them in our
world but we know of no other mathematical object that exemplifies these patterns
in the way that these formations do that are associated with the hyper-complex
algebras. So once again the hyper-complex algebras are our guide in understanding
what we have called macro-quantum mechanical and qualitative experience as a
form of immanence which is opposed to the transcendence of the invisible functions
of cognition and the illusion of continuity exemplified by the calculus.
In our scheme of emergent ontological levels, which is, of course, provisional,

it is the monad which serves as the representation of the fusion of quantity and
quality. Monads, in our sense, are independent existing eventities, that occur at the
limits of our perception, whatever those limits are. As with the Mandelbrot set, given
a level of magnification, there is a field of points which are each treated
independently. Iteration and color coding is applied to each independently, then we
form a series of gestalts based on the patterning they reveal. So the monad is a
moment of pure content or ‘hyle’ at what ever level we might be looking. It is
quantitative to the extent each moment is treated independently within the perceptual
field. It is qualitative because the monad has its color value, or general sensate value,
as distinct from all those around it in the discontinuous field. When we treat the field
as a proto-gestalt or meta-systemic environment then we project upon it coherences
and implicate orders that cause us to have a series of gestalts of the field. Both the
proto-gestalt and the gestalts within the proto-gestalt is something we project on the
field of pure discontinuity, i.e. Existence. As projections the proto-gestalt and the
gestalts are part of Being. Just as the forms are at the level of Pure Being and the
patterns are at the level of Process Being, so the monads are at the level of traces in
Hyper Being. Thus everything that Derrida says about the traces in his
Grammatology appertain to the level of monads. In other words we can think of
monads as the traces left by the writing of the projection of perception. We can think
of monads as written into the palimpsest of existence. Myriad perceptions leave their
traces on existence. This is the sense in which we find the qualia the same for each
of us. We read off the traces of prior perception in our act of perception. That prior
perception is social. A trace is like when writing on a pad of paper we pull up the
sheet we have written on and shade in the next page down in the sheaf of papers.
There we see the indentions left by our writing. If we write over the same sheet
multiple times then we produce a palimpsest of traces. That palimpsest shows us
fuzzy images of what we have written which are all interfering with each other to
such a degree that it turns into a pure field of chaotic moments. When we reach that
level of chaos we have entered Wild Being. Each of these moments in the field has
222
its qualia and its quantity fused together. However, the fusion of quality and quantity
in the monad is not enough. There is a further level of analysis which we have
mentioned which is called the facet. One may think of the facet as the reversibility
between the chiasmic phases within the facet. In other words the same monad under
various conditions appears differently. The qualia change subtly from moment to
moment depending on the aspect under which we are looking at the monadic content.
It is as if we changed the color coding of the Mandelbrot, Quaterbrot, or ‘Aambrot’
depending on the context and viewing angle. As we know the Mandelbrot is a two
dimensional image. But the Quaterbrot is four dimensional and the ‘Aambrot’ is
eight dimensional. So aspect does not really play a role in the Mandelbrot. But in the
higher level fractal sets it can be seen to play a role as the viewpoints on the particular
moments of content may be different. If this difference of aspect makes a difference,
i.e. the coloring changes depending on the viewing angle, then we have a model of
the facet. In other words the monad is not merely uniformly colored surface. If it
were then that would lead to our inability to see its content. It’s ‘content’ would be
written on its surface rather than something inside it. But because we can think of the
monad as having a chiasmic interior that can catch the light in any angle, then we
will see various colorations depending on the relation of the observer to the monad
itself. It is as if it were made of colored glasses and that glass was twisted and warped
within the monad so that when the light went through the monad it varied in its hue.
Of course, this is merely one example based on vision. The monad does not have
merely one propensity, rather it has various propensities depending on context. Each
facet is a different propensity. The propensities appear in the internal reversible
phase structure of the monad. That phase structure corresponds to what has been
called the chiasmic cube which we have developed out of the Greimas square. That
cube has octonionic structure and allows for the interference of several different
reversible phases within the interior of the monad. It is in Wild Being that we
apprehend within the chaos an implicit ordering. That implicit ordering is what there
is of the things themselves under all the layers of our projection upon them. We see
that in the propensities, tendencies or dispositions of the monads in the given
situation. Each monad has a tendency in a situation which we see when we view the
monad under various aspects. We can simulate that by changing the coloration of the
moment in the Quaterbrot or ‘Aambrot’ depending on the viewing angle within the
complex space of the fractal. Each monad is like a jewel within Indra’s net. From
various aspects depending on the light and the point of view of the observer the jewel
will look differently. We realize the intrinsic social nature of the monadic jewels
when we realize that they are reflecting each other and that part of what we see of
their difference is the mutual reflections of the jewels. Thus all monads appear within
a swarm within a field of discontinuous multiplicity. However, from another aspect
all monads are layered instead of multiple. The layering is the reflections they have
of the other monads in the swarm. This shows reflections of reflections of reflections
to an infinite depth. In other words reflections are not merely first order but
participate in an infinite mirroring. That infinite mirroring can be seen as the layering
223
of the monad. It is that layering that allows us to call the monad a viewpoint in a
constellation of viewpoints, in as much as it can look upon that layering produced by
mutual mirroring and see itself and others as the origins of the infinite regresses.
From another aspect all monads are candidates in a slate. In other words when we
start looking at the possibilities of the monads we find that there are myriad
possibilities for viewing each monad within the field of reflectivity. There are myriad
positions for the lighting of the monad as well. When you realize that all these
possibilities exist then it becomes clear how the faceted monad goes to the next level
of infinity beyond the infinity of mirrored images. But the monad is also a seed in a
pod from yet another aspect. From this aspect we find that in each discrete moment
there is only one finite set of sources of light and one finite set of positions in
spacetime for the monads in the swarm. So at each moment the sets of possibilities
cancel out to give us the basis of one particular situation. In the seed the monad
returns to its source. When it becomes a monad it comes out of that source to become
an origin within spacetime. When it becomes a viewpoint then it becomes a
boundary and explores what is inside it rather than outside. There it finds mirrored
inside whatever is seen outside. When it becomes a candidate then it looks at its
position in the encompassing stream of endless possibilities. In this way we can see
that the monads with their facets have a direct connection to the aspects of the proto-
gestalt. In other words Forms that appear as figures in a gestalt with their patterned
contents are rooted in the proto-gestalt via the monads and facets that underlie them.
Monads in their swarms exhibit the implicate order of the proto-gestalt. We can think
of the various colored inkblobs that are stirred into a super solution that can be stirred
and unstirred multidimensionally without interfering with itself. Each inkblob that is
stirred into the solution in a different way can be unstirred from it. But think of the
individual particles of ink as faceted monads. Then what we see is that each stirring
are merely an implicit aspect of the solution and that the various colors of the
inkblobs is merely revealing the various facets of the contents of the solution. What
the concepts of monad and facet do is place the implicate order of the solution at
every point in the solution like a hologram. In other words it makes it holoidal. As
we know everything that is holoidal is made up of holons and their integra. This
unfolds into the novum and the epoch which in turn unfolds into essencing forth of
the eventity. And this series of devolution finally yields the ephemeron, i.e. what is
false, illusory and different as opposed to the holoidal which is true, real, and
identical. At the meta-system level there is this holoidal fusion of the hologram that
we see in the jeweled net where every monad reflects every other monad in the
swarm. When we come up to the level of propensities in Wild Being then we see the
holon and integra as the two fundamental ways of looking at the faceted monad.
When we come up to the level of traces in Hyper Being then we see that the two
fundamental ways of looking at the faceted monad is in terms of the Novum and the
Epoch, i.e. in terms of the utterly new emergent events and the periods of time when
the proto-gestalt is stable. When the emergent event occurs then the proto-gestalt is
repatterned. When we come up to the level of signs, values, processes, and structures
224
at the level of Process Being then we see the various patterns which appear as we
project on the monads as content of our field of consciousness. At the level of
patterning the fundamental way of looking at the faceted monad is in terms of
Essencing and Eventity. Finally when we come up to the level of Form and find that
this form is a figure on a ground then the fundamental way of looking at the faceted
monad is in terms of the ephemeron. In other words to a formalism content is
irrelevant. Each of the levels of the trigrams of Being are associated with what
Chang calls the levels of harmony. If we start out from the level of the ephemeron
then at that level there is no harmony but only Epedoclean Strife. The next level of
harmony is logical consistency that appears at the Essencing and Eventity level with
respect to the faceted monad. The next level of harmony is mutual action or
interaction that appears as the level of Novum and Epoch with respect to the faceted
monad. The next level of harmony is mutual dependence or mutual support that
appears at the level Holon and Integra with respect to the faceted monad. The final
level of harmony is the image of Interpenetration within the Holoidal Hologram with
respect to the faceted monad.
.
Figure 67:
Levels of Harmony Trigrams of Being Meta-Levels

interpenetration holoid Existence of facet
mutual support holon/integra Wild Being of facet
mutual action novum/epoch Hyper Being of facet
logical consistency essencing/eventity Process Being of facet
strife ephemeron Pure Being of facet
Holonomics helps us to understand the interrelation of facets at the various

levels of Being or Harmony or in terms of the trigrams of Being and thus gives us a
language to talk about the holoidal nature of existence as a meta-hologram. We note
that the negative subspace of dimensionality opens out on the horizon of hyper-
complex algebras that go infinitely deep in terms of the division of the single source
into myriad of fragments of the source which are all the same as it. This goes on to
the depth that everything in existence can be seen to have its own unique source, or
everything that has ever existed in the universe can be seen to have its own unique
source deeper in the Pascal triangle, or even deeper all the things that have ever
existed in all the worlds can be seen as having their own unique source which is
merely a splinter of the single source in subdimension negative one. Hyper-complex
algebra shows us how all those sources can be the same. The sources are not located
in a particular place like the dimensionless origin points. The sources are
225
everywhere/nowhere in relation to the dimensionless points in higher dimensional

spaces. The negative dimensional subspace is active instead of static like normal
geometrical space as we have seen when we hypothesized that the EMS cycle
operates to produce the dimensionless points of space within the negative subspace.
Everything that appears in a dimensional space appears from and returns to the
sources in the negative dimensional subspace. We call it a subspace because negative
dimensions would be precisely the same as positive dimensions, merely the inverted
dual if it were not for the imaginary numbers that unfold from the square root of
negative one. This unfolding occurs at the negative one dimension as well to produce
the subspace of infinite hypercomplex dimensionalities. In these subspaces are non-
locatable sources that span all the dimensions of higher dimensional spaces and can
produce the dimensionless points that inhabit these higher dimensions. This infinite
series of subspaces produced by the hyper-complex algebras can be thought of as the
meta-system to the dimensional systems. In the negative dimension there is an image
of the dual of the positive dimensions which is augmented by the imaginary spaces
that unfold from it. This is like the operating system that the applications of higher
dimensional spaces emerge from and the arena in which they exist. Each dimension
is an encompassing stream for all lower dimensions while in the subspace is the
sources, or sources, from which the dimensionless points arise.
Facets are the intersection between the subspace definition at the level of
512nion and the 512 plank intervals. In other words facets exist as a kind of hinge
between the description of things in terms of dimensionality, i.e. higher and higher
kleinian bottle self-introjection and lower and lower subspace fragmentation of the
sources. It is a convenient point at which the harmonics of the two differentations of
subspace and higher dimensional space coincide. It also happens to be the level
where the perfect number 130816 appears as the number of relations between 512
things. This kind of perfect balancing between the facets in terms of plank interval
differentiation and hyper-complex differentation is precisely what holonomics is
about. The relations between 130816 relations neither has excess nor lack. We can
imagine these relations as occurring between a Plank interval at the 512 level and a
source that is part of the 512nion. So the perfect numbers describe the holonic quality
of the relation between the positive dimensional aspect and the negative subspace
dimensional aspect of the pluriverse.
Facets mediate between monads and pluriverse. We can think of the

pluriverse as an unfolding of a monadic swarm and the kosmos (universe) within a
pluriverse as the unfolding of a monad within the swarm. There is continuous
unfolding and infolding of the monad into the kosmos and vice versa. The meta-
system related to this inverting transformation is the faceted pluriverse. All of this is
contained in our analogy with higher dimensional spaces in relation to the subspace
of negative imaginary dimensions. The pluriverse is n-dimensional. It is therefore the
encompassing stream. Each monad is like an n-1dimensional space within the n-
226
dimensional space. The monad is made up of myriad zero-dimensional points which

are the origins from which it unfolds. Any one of these zero-dimensional point can
be the origin from which the grid of the coordinate system unfolds. The zero-
dimensional points are the seeds from which dimensionality of any given dimension
unfolds. The sources are the fragments of the imaginary source in subspace negative
one that appear as we go deeper and deeper into the Pascal triangle via the Cayley-
Dickson process. Each dimension is an arena within which the various zero-
dimensionless points interact to form higher dimensional synergetic figures and
forms. At whatever level we posit the kosmos operating there is the higher
dimensional pluriverse that contains many kosmi. Each dimension is holonic with
respect to that above and below it. So we can think of the relation of the kosmos to
the monad as the relation of dimension n-1 to n-2. In other words the n dimensional
pluriverse contains the komos of n-1 which is made up of the monads of dimension
n-2 and the facets of dimension n-3. The negative dimensions n-1, n-2, n-3 can
always be mapped on the negative dimensional subspace. By that mapping there is
always a duality between n-dimensionality of the pluriverse and the n-3
dimensionality of the facet. This duality acts as bookends for the n-1 and n-2
dimensionality of the kosmic monad.
12. Special Systems Theory and Meta-Systems Theory Holonomic Duality

In this paper we have worked to define special systems theory as best we can
as the bridge to understanding meta-systems. But in doing so we have defined meta-
systems themselves because of the holonomic duality between meta-systems and
special systems. We comprehend this duality in the following way. When we started
the distinction between the gestalt and the flow was made. We said that a system is
a social gestalt or conversely we can see it as a social flow. Then we noticed that the
social gestalt can be pushed into time to produce a temporal gestalt, or the social flow
can be pulled out of time into a synchronic moment as a timelapse. This gives us four
states of the synchronic and diachronic gestalt or flow corresponding to idea,
emotion, concept and feeling. Then we asked ourselves what the dual of these four
are in the proto-gestalt or meta-system. The proto-gestalt is the implicate order that
the gestalts arise out of in our experience as we move from gestalt to gestalt. The
proto-gestalt is our pre-gestalt of the environment of the system. At that level there
must also be the duality between gestalt and flow. We know now that the meta-
system is intrinsically complementarity and in fact sports complementary
complementarities. In this case the higher order complementarity is between proto-
gestalt and proto-flow. We know that the proto-gestalt has the sub-complementarity
of origin and arena. We posit that the proto-flow has the sub-complementarity of
source and encompassing stream. This gives us four aspects at the meta-system level
that correspond to the four aspects at the system level.
Now once we understand the set of complementary complementarities at the
227
meta-system level we begin to wonder what their inter-relations might be.

Eventually it becomes clear that when combined these aspects form the basis of a
picture of the dissipative system. In other words the arena defines the boundary of
the dissipative system. Outside that boundary is the encompassing flow of energy
and other resources that provide the dissipative system with the flows of energy that
it lives off of as it produces order in itself. The origin is the same as the singularity
from which the order flows out toward the boundary through the arena. The origin is
the point where the grid or coordinate system imposed on the landscape intersects
with the landscape itself. The grid is the order that propagates from the singularity
out toward the boundary. The sources are of course out of timespace. They are in the
negative dimensional subspace from which the systems arise in time. From the
sources the systems travel through time to the sinks by which they return to their
sources. The origin and end points of the system may be different within the space
of the dissipative systems while the sources and sinks are the same outside of
spacetime. In this way we realize that when we bring the four complementary
complementaries of proto-gestalt and proto-flow together we have defined the
dissipative system in a formal way. This tells us that the meta-system breaks up into
dissipative systems. It shows us that a dissipative system is really merely a pocket of
dissipation within a wider dissipative environment. Normally systems are not
dissipative only the environment is dissipative. But in some rare cases the systems
are dissipative as well in which case we really have a pocket of a sub-meta-system
within a wider meta-system. It also means that we can construct more complex meta-
systemic environments by looking at the relations between dissipative structures of
the sub-environments and these may be called autopoietic when they have stable
boundaries with respect to each other. We can also see that these meta-environments
that are autopoietic can be conjuncted to produce reflexive meta2-environments. The
ability to conjunct environmental niches is endless and leads to the picture of the
meta-system as an endlessly complex conjunction of dissipative environments.
When we have enantiomorphic relations between autopoieticly conjuncted
dissipative niches then we have reflexive environments that can cancel with each
other. Cancellation really means in this case enantiomorphic mirroring because what
ever is enantiomorphicly mirrored is pushed back into the four dimensional space.
What ever exists in three dimensional space is that which is not enantiomorphicly
mirrored. Enantiomporphic mirroring of reflexive environments such as we see in
many animals on earth shows that there is four dimensional space cancellation
happening at that point in three space. At those points there is a manifestation of
formlessness as cancellation of mirroring images. As we go on up the higher and
higher levels of embedding of dissipative niche environments in autopoietic meta-
environments and reflexive meta2-environments we begin to understand the
meaning of Gaia. Gaia is a hypothesis that the environment of the planet itself is alive
and conscious. What we see is that environments as conjuncted dissipative systems
can become autopoietic and thus by definition living cognitive, and at further levels
228
of conjunction they can become reflexive and thus by definition social

psychological. This then is the true meaning of the Gaia hypothesis. Just as the
system in rare cases can be dissipative, and thus a pocket niche environment in a
wider environment, and in even rarer cases it can become autopoietic, and in even
rarer cases it can become reflexive, so too the environments themselves can be seen
as dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive. Special systems theory that describes the
rare anomalous aspects of systems becomes general in meta-systems theory
describing the relations between dissipative niches in terms of autopoietic and
reflexive relations which give us the nature of Gaia which is embedded in higher
order non-division algebraic structures of the encompassing metan-environment.
Gaia is the reflection of our living-cognitive aspects in the meta-environment and the
reflection of our social-psychological aspects in the meta2-environment. Or we are
the reflection of those aspects of the environment. There is mutual mirroring between
ourselves and our environment and that mutual mirroring is the Self-consciousness
of Gaia and ourselves. Based on this analysis there is no doubt that Gaia exists. We
cannot recognize it directly because it is the inverse of ourselves, it is our living-
cognitive and social-psychological natures turned inside out. In destroying our
environment with all of it’s conjuncted meta-systems we are truly destroying
ourselves because we are destroying the mirroring between ourselves and our living-
cognitive and social-psychological environment. The fact that meta-systemic
description can be done in terms of special systems in a holonomic way shows us the
fundamental wisdom of the design of creation in the face of which we should find
ourselves in awe and wonderment because it guarantees the mirroring between our
living-cognitive and social-psychological characteristics and those of our
encompassing environments.
229
Figure 68: Dissipative Meta-System
higher source
order
energy
source boundary of arena
system
* anti-system
S S’
grid
* sink
origin singularity
encompassing
stream
Once it is clear that the dissipative system is the same as the environmental
meta-systemic niche from a formal point of view with respect to the patterning by
the proto-gestalt and proto-flow complementarities, then it is possible to build up a
picture of the wider meta-system in the same way we build up our pictures of the
autopoietic and reflexive special systems. In the diagrams S and S’ stand for the
Systems within the environment. These may be dissipative, autopoietic or reflexive,
and as such they would represent niches within a niche if they existed. Normally the
system and meta-system are allopoietic instead. We can see that the paths of the
system/anti-system pairs going from source to sink, traveling through the dissipative
pocket, has the same form as the creation and annihilation of the virtual particles and
anti-particles that make up the field of empty spacetime. This pattern exhibits the
structure of the kinds of Being. Creation out of nothing appears out of Wild Being.
The two particles traveling together are caught in Pure Presence. The traversal of the
interval gives us Process Being. The cancellation at the end of the interval give us
Hyper Being. Thus this model relates to the kinds of Being and the aspects of Being
as well. The relation to the aspects of Being comes from the fact that the Meta-
system’s relation to the system is in terms of Reality while its relation to itself is in
terms of Presence. On the other hand the relation of the system to the meta-system is
in terms of truth while its relation to itself is through identity. So in this way both the
aspects and the kinds of Being appear within the dissipative meta-systemic niche.
230
Figure 69: Autopoietic Meta2-system
*
*
stable boundaries
S S’
S’ S
*
*
Taking two niches and putting them together so that the source of one is
connected to the sink of the other yields an autopoietic meta2-systemic ecology.
When we take two autopoietic meta2-systemic ecologies and conjunct them such that
they are seen as enantiomorphic then we get a reflexive meta3-systemic
environment. Such niches and conjuncted niches, etc. can happen in many different
ways. The theory is that when it occurs the autopoietic and reflexive properties pop
into existence until the conjunction is lost then they vanish just as quickly.
Understanding exactly how this occurs is the goal of holonomics as applied to a
particular field. What we are developing here is a General Meta-systems Theory that
is based on a direct application of Special Systems Theory to the structure of the
meta-systems based on our understanding of the proto-gestalt. It says that the tiered
meta-system is a structure of complex conjunctions of dissipative super-systems.
Precisely how this structure is realized in various instances will be different. Here we
are concentrating on understanding the organization of the meta-system knowing
that the structural level will be different in each case. The organizational level is the
same because it is part of our projection of the meta-system onto the ontic realm.
Meta-systems are incredibly complex conjunctions of niches. But what is of interest
is that no matter how complex they are it is the first few levels that allows them to
mirror back to us the living-cognitive and social-psychological characteristics that
we find in our selves as embodiments of special systems.
231
Figure 70: Reflexive Meta3-system
*
*
stable boundaries
S S’
S’ S
*
*
enantiomorphic mirroring
*
*
stable boundaries
S S’
S’ S
*
*
When we consider the relation of the meta1-systemic niches to the meta2-
systemic ecologies we find later is a conjunction of the former that is composed of
origin (destination) /arena (boundary) // source (sink) / stream (cause) :: singularity
(anomaly) / ramified-subspaces // generator (destructor) / ramified-encompassment.
When we put dissipative niches together it is necessary to have the equivalent of
gage particle interactions because each niche is projecting its own ordering of its
arena within its boundary. Thus we show arrows from sink to source and vice versa
in order to demonstrate the symbiotic relations between the two niches that combine
to create a meta2-systemic ecology. However, we can think of this interchange as an
exchange of gage particles which renders the higher level meta2-systemic ecology
coordinate system independent. As an example let us take a tree as an autopoietic
system that is a conjunction of two dissipative niches. The leaves and trunk are in the
niche of the air and the roots are in the niche of the earth. Each of these niches are
made up of various of the machines that exist at the level of Wild Being: desiring,
disseminating, absorbing, ejecting. The leaves and branches work together to absorb
CO2 and light while ejecting Oxygen. They disseminate sugars to the lower niche.
232
Desiring is seen in relation to growth which is reaching for the sunlight. For the root
system there is the absorbing of waters and minerals which are disseminated to the
upper niche. Wastes are ejected and desire is again seen in growth for more water
and food by the root system. Thus a tree which appears as a single thing is really
living in two different niches simultaneously and operating as a symbiotic exchange
between them. The conjunction of the two niches produces an autopoietic ecology.
The cells of the tree are adapted to these two symbiotic niches. This occurs because
each cell projects a coordinate system on the whole tree. Each cell interoperates with
the others by exchanging gage information packets with the other cells around it. The
gage information packets give the coordinate independent position of each cell and
results in the growth and developmental unfolding of the meta-essence of the plant.
The gage information packets (infons) only appear when two niches are conjuncted.
When we go up a level to the reflexive conjunction of the meta3-systemic
environment then these become meta-gage infons. Meta-gage infons can be seen as
signs of reference, values within an economic market, processes and structures. In
other words the gage infons appear at the trace level and the meta-gage infons appear
at the pattern level. meta2-gage infons are symbolic forms that appear at the level of
forms as we break into the meta4 and higher conjunctions of niches. The relation of
the infons (info packets) to energy can be seen in Stonier’s equation of information
to potential energy.
This brings us to ask what the niches are that animals inhabit if plants inhabit
two niches that are so different since animals are walking around basically in the air.
We posit that the two niches for animals including the human animal are the material
world and the world of consciousness, social and individual. Thus for us
consciousness becomes a niche which we inhabit and that we exchange gage like
infons between. Our meta-gage particles are signs that appear in reflexive social
relations. Thus we see how the quantum-qualia role of consciousness in macro-
quantum mechanics plays a role in understanding the world in which humans and
other animals inhabit. This niche of shared consciousness includes animals and the
human planetary cohort. We could posit other beings336 who have a similar relation
between consciousness and supra-conscious states, i.e. they live in two dissipative
niches one consisting of consciousness and the other consisting of some higher or
supra-conscious realm. In all cases what we think of as organisms are really
exchange systems between these two realms. Thus we can think of milieus not only
as natural in the sense of niches, ecologies and environments but also in terms of the
layering and segmentation of consciousness. When we think of organisms as
straddling niches rather than within a niche we find ourselves applying the dictum of
Bateson that the information from two completely different sources is better quality
336. In Islam these are called Jinn, who the Greeks called gods using a word that means invisible man. Angels may represent an
even higher conjunction of realms.
233
information than from one source. We can posit that all organisms that are
autopoietic exist as exchangers between niches rather than as living in the niches
themselves. In this way we find that an ecology is a shared niche and an environment
is a reflexive conjunction of shared niches. This leads to a new kind of biology that
considers not just the macro-quantum/qualia mechanics of consciousness but also
that concentrates on the circulation of gage infons and meta-gage infons of reference,
i.e. signs, value, process and structure at the level of pattern that culminates in the
forms we see and the exchange of symbols between those forms, i.e. a symbolic
interactionism of the Gaia environment.
In order to make the concepts clear in this section let us look at the Highway
Transportation meta-system. We can consider the automobile as a system. It exists
when on the highway in the dissipative niche of the Highway single direction
roadway on which we find it. In this case the on and off ramps are sources and sinks
for the flow of traffic made up of the car systems. The arena is the roadway with its
several lanes between median and the shoulder of the road. The origin is the place
where the roadway starts and the destination is its opposite. The encompassing
stream is the other roads outside the highway niche. Also that includes the generators
and destructors of dealers and junk yards as well as the petroleum industry and other
subsidiary automotive industries. The grid is the road markers and other signs that
are alongside the road. The singularity includes the lane markings, debris in the
roadway and accidents.
This niche becomes autopoietic when we add to that the roadway lanes that go
in the opposite direction. At that level there is a reinterpretation of the elements of
the meta-system and the meta2-system. The autopoietic roadway is what we mostly
have because people want to be able to go and come and we do not build one-way
roads very often. This creates the whole ecology of the road city with its motels,
restaurants, fast food joints, filling stations etc. that cater to the traffic that is going
in both directions. And we move to the reflexive level we can see it in the cloverleaf
highway intersection. We see the reflection in the fact that we can go around the
clover leaf in such a way as to go back in the opposite direction from which we came.
The ability to transition from one two way roadway to another allows us to have a
transportation network which has enhanced properties. Higher level meta-systemic
reflexivity occurs when we bring together different modes of transportation such as
air travel and rail travel and shipping. All modes of human travel is the highest level
meta-system which blends into the ultimate meta-system which is everything
happening on our globe or everything happening in the universe. Travel is just one
aspect of our world but it provides a comprehensive set of nested environments, in
those we can see how the conjunction of dissipative niches produces autopoietic
ecologies which in turn produce reflexive and meta-systemic environments. When
we say that the special systems attributes exist in the nested environments we do not
mean that autopoietic ecologies are living/cognitive in the way humans are but only
234
that these kinds of environments have emergent properties that are consonant with
those in autopoietic systems in general. Similarly when we say that reflexive
environments are social/psychological we merely mean that they display emergent
properties that are consonant with those of social and psychological beings such as
ourselves. We do not mean they have the same properties as social organisms only
that they give rise to new emergent properties that are beyond what an autopoietic
ecology might have which in turn goes beyond what a dissipative niche might have.
The Highway system gives an excellent example of this kind of nesting which is
fairly obvious because it is artificially constructed. Other natural environments may
be more intertwined and embedded to produce more complex emergent levels as we
move up through the emergent levels of the meta-system which is organized along
the lines of the conjunctions of the special systems.
13. Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Reflexive Healing

Now it is time to engage in the production of an example taken from
traditional disciplines of healing. In this example we select Homeopathy337 which
has its roots in Islamic and Greek medicine but which became an alternative Western
medicine from the 1700s till about the 1920s when it lost ground to the dominant
medical paradigm of Alleopathy. Acupuncture on the other hand was a traditional
form of medicine practiced almost exclusively in China until recently. We posit that
these two forms of medicine338 are good examples of the kinds of systems we are
proposing to study here. Thus there are already sciences that treat human health from
the Holonic point of view. Homeopathy is purely dissipative while Acupuncture is
purely autopoietic. These two forms of medicine are duals of each other as we will
show.
In Chinese cosmology there are four celestial lights. These are Major Yang
and Major Yin as well as Minor Yang and Minor Yin. These four permutations of
Yin and Yang roll over as opposites in a continual cycle as shown by the circle with
the two waves where one opposite is embedded in the other called the Yin/Yang
symbol. These celestial lights have the following correspondences:
337. Resch, G. and Gutmann, V. [1987] Scientific Foundations of Homeopathy. Barthel Barthel Publishers. See also Hahnemann,
S. Organon of Medicine. New Delhi, Homeopathic Publishers. See also Coulter, Harris L. [1982] Divided legacy : the
conflict between homoeopathy and the American Medical Association. Volume 3. Richmond, Calif. : North Atlantic
Books, 1982. Coulter shows in volume one the roots of Homeopathy in the Greek Medical Tradition which was taken up
and passed to the West through Islam. Coulter, Harris L. [1973] Divided legacy : a history of the schism in medical
thought. Volume 1. Washington, Wehawken Book Co., 1973-94. Coulter, Harris L. [1982] Science and ethics in Ameri-
can medicine, 1800-1914 Volume 2. Richmond, CA, North Atlantic Books, 1982.
235
Figure 71:
Major Yang = Sun = Heart in Homeopathy
Major Yin = Moon = Mind in Homeopathy
Minor Yang = Stars = Points in Acupuncture
Minor Yin = planets = Five Hsing in Acupuncture
As you can see Homeopathy treats the Major Yin and Yang components
related to the celestial body. Acupuncture treats the Minor Yin and Yang
components related to celestial body. So these two forms of medicine are
complimentarities of each other.
Homeopathy is purely dissipative. If we take Kent’s Philosophy339 as our

guide then we see that disease is thought of as order moving from the center to the
periphery. Disease only effects the body that is susceptible to it. Disease must move
to the center and dissipate instead of order from there. It is impossible for disease to
effect the body from the periphery. In homeopathy one takes substances and gives
them to healthy people to be proven. By a succession of provings all the possible
symptoms produced in healthy people by a substance can be discovered. Then one
looks for a patient with as nearly as possible the same totality of symptoms. When
such a patient is found then the homeopath produces a tincture of the healing
substance through a series of secussion steps which attenuate the concentration of the
substance until nothing of the original substance is present. This absence has a
particular structure prepared through the successive fractal embedding of the pattern
338. The link between China and Islam is the fact that there are said to have been 124000 prophets to mankind in the Islamic tra-
dition. Fu Hsi is a good candidate to have been the Prophet to the Chinese people, in fact as he is portrayed with horns it
could be that Fu Hsi may be associated with Dhul Quarnin, the master of the two horns mentioned in Quran. The claim
is that when a prophet arrives to a tribe or people one may ask questions about either Allah (God) or creation. If one asks
about God then the answer will concern the nature of Tawhid, i.e. radical unity. If one asks about creation then the answer
will be a heuristic device such as those listed in Figure 68 concerning the rolling over of natural, but supra-rational, op-
posites in creation. Thus, there is in human history as influenced by the many prophets to specific tribes and peoples the
possibility of a Prophetic Science based on the understanding of heuristic devices by which they explained the operation
of creation. Prophetic Science encompasses and surpasses what we know of Western Science because in fact Western
Science is a degenerating of Prophetic Science taken from the Greeks and Arabs. We, therefore, call Prophetic Science:
“Mainstream Science” and consider modern Western Science to be an eddy off of that great stream of Prophetically-based
Science beginning with Adam and continuing through the Prophet Muhammad down to today. Muhammad is the last
prophet who brought revelation from God to all peoples rather than to a specific tribe. The Sunnah (practices) and Sharia
(Way of Life) of Islam based on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad is the highest and best known embodiment of
Prophetic Science. We can see this very clearly when we consider the relations between the five pillars of Islam and the
Special Systems hierarchy:
Meta-system = Hajj (Pilgrimage)
Reflexive Special System = Zakat (Charity)
Autopoietic Special System = Nimaz (Prayer)
Dissipative Special System = Saum (Fasting)
System = Shahada (Witnessing of Radical Unity)
This study may be considered as an exercise in an Archeology of Knowledge that looks for the traces of Prophetic Science
in the artifacts of many cultures but especially the roots of the Greek, Chinese and Islamic cultures.
236
of the substance in the medium of the secussion which is either alcohol or water. This
process produces a negative of the coherence of the substance at the molecular level
imprinted as a trace within the chaotically agitated medium. This trace is frozen in a
sugar pill and then eventually given to the patient. The coherence of the disease in
the patient cancels with the coherence of the inverse trace of the substance to effect
the annihilation of the disease. This cure is also dissipative as it moves through the
liquid medium of the body as a celestial organizational waveform cancelling the
wave form of the disease from inside to outside and from top to bottom. Thus order
dissipates from will (heart) to mind to body in the healthy person. Disease likewise
dissipates from the center in the sick person. The reaction of the healthy person to a
substance is the basis for the cure of the sick. The opposite trace to the coherence of
the substance, that makes sick, is given to the sick and that annihilates the disease
giving back health. This cure also is placed at the center of the body in the mouth and
that radiates throughout the body dissipatively. The totality of symptoms in the
prover and the patient that match are the system. The meta-system is indicated by the
lack patterned as the inverse of the healing substance by the homeopathic
pharmacist. This lack is given to the patient and that destroys the disease. The
relation between the system and the meta-system is produced by miasmas that create
susceptibility in the patient. If it were not for the miasmas there would be no
susceptibility and the patient would never get sick.
Acupuncture is quite different. In acupuncture the body is seen as an

autopoietic whole. That whole is dissipative in terms of the flow of Chi, or vital
energy in a way similar to Homeopathy. But in Acupuncture there is a special
celestial kind of Chi called Jing which is given by nature to an individual at birth and
which causes immediate death when it runs out. The whole purpose of medicine is
to restore the Jing. This gets out of balance when Yang Splendor and Closed Yin
appear as extremely unbalanced states. These states arise when someone holds on to
one of the opposites as they roll over and attempts to stop the natural process of one
opposite turning into the other. Yang Splendor appears when we attempt to freeze
Yin and Closed Yin appears when we attempt to freeze Yang. These two
characteristics are extreme nihilistic opposites such as those endemic in Western
Culture as seen in the opposition between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman in
Zoroastrianism or closer to home between Athena/Apollo and Artimis/Dionysus in
Greek culture. Our Western culture revels in the production of extreme nihilistic
opposites. This is seen as the epitome of sickness in Chinese medicine. However,
Chinese medicine has lost track of the underpinnings of its own science. In order to
restore these underpinnings it is necessary to reformulate the relations between the
five Hsing (transformations) and the acupuncture points. We can do this based on Ibn
al-Arabi’s discussion of Celestial Causation in Chapter Eleven of the Mekkan
Revelations. Yang is an unseen cause. Yin is the appearance of movement in the
339. Kent, J.T. [1980] Lectures on Hoemopathic Philosophy. New Delhi, B. Jain Pub.
237
seen, heard, felt, etc. earth (ard in Arabic) flowing form the action of an unseen
cause. In Homeopathy the unseen cause appears in the heart as the determination of
the will (i.e. intention) and then appears in the intellect as a decision or a set of
reasons and finally the order that appears from nowhere appears in the configuration
of the body. In acupuncture what we have to realize is that we are dealing with Minor
Yang that appears on the surface of the body as the flowing celestial energies moving
between the acupuncture points. These points are independent of each other and the
Chi jumps around from point to point like an instantaton. The pattern of the
activation of acupuncture points happens like the different patterns of electrons in the
Schroninger equation. A disease is set up by a blockage of the movement of Chi to
all possible points. This is like a particular standing wave on the surface of a watery
planet. The Schroninger equation represents all possible patterns of standing waves.
When we introduce needles there is a pattern interrupt through perturbation of a set
of acupuncture points. This causes the standing wave pattern to break up and either
change to another pattern or to sink into the probability wave of all possible patterns.
In acupuncture the meta-system is on the inside and the system is the shell of the
autopoietic system. The inverse of this is that the sickness is a restricted economy
within the meta-systemic interior. When we cause a pattern interrupt within the
autopoietic system then that restricted economy breaks down and is replaced by the
global economy of the whole body which is equivalent to the state of health wherein
the Chi flows freely to all of the acupuncture points from all the acupuncture points
in a rhythmic and cyclical fashion. The acupuncture points are equivalent to the
nodes in the autopoietic network. These are organized by the five Hsing that are
imaginary nodes of a hyper-cycle which controls the flow of Chi around the body by
a series of transformations from one form of Chi to another. The Jing is the catalyst
in this transformative process. The acupuncture point nodes each give a particular
kind of Chi energy that is taken together and transformed by the Hsing using the Jing.
The production of useful Chi from the raw Chi appearing at the acupuncture points
is given in an analogy to a pot boiling on a fire. Upon the earth there is wood that is
on fire which heats a metal pot filled with water. The escaping steam is by this
analogy like the Chi. If we recognize the Hsing as a hypercycle of transformations
in imaginary hyperspace that control the acupuncture point nodes of the autopoietic
system then we get an accurate picture of the isomorphism between the acupuncture
theory and autopoietic theory. The Chi is the structure and the Jing is the
organization which is imposed by the five Hsing transforming the Chi from the
acupuncture points and channeling its distribution throughout the entire organism.
The view of the acupuncture points as being on meridians is from the viewpoint of
this interpretation only a heuristic device. It should also be remarked that the
opposite of Chi is ‘Li’ which means both patterning and principle. The Li340 is the
ordering principle behind the actual manifestation of the Chi. Chi is the energy of
growth, such as the growth of the physus and the logos. Thus, Chi is non-dual energy
340. Chin-Shu, Lo [1987] Knowledge Painfully Acquired. N.Y. Columbia U.P.
238
prior to the distinction of the physus from the logos. Thus it is not purely physical
energy. But the Chi is directed by Li so that it lays down a pattern that is specific to
its each individual manifestation beyond the level of essence or meta-essence, i.e. at
the level of Wild Being.
The Five Hsing interact with the four receptivities of the earth to produce the
twenty interactions between Heaven and Earth by which their interpenetration
occurs. A given Hsing as a “flavor” of unseen cause gives four different lines of
causation moving out from its point of interaction with the earth (Ard). This is like
throwing four rocks in a calm lake at about the same time. The various wave patterns
cross and interfere. We see this interference pattern in terms of the heuristic pattern
of bifurcating opposites. The permutation of these opposites gives us a set of 2N
qualitative states which the interference pattern as a whole pops around within or
rolls over into opposites through. An example of this is the I Ching with 64
hexagrams. These heuristic devices form the heirarchy based on the 2N progressive
bisection. We can see examples of these kinds of heuristics throughout history.
Figure 72:
1 Source
1 1 Great Ultimate
21 2 Yin/Yanga
22 4 Major Yang/Minor Yin//Minor Yang/Major Yinb
23 8 Trigrams of I Chingc; Opposites of Sidi Ali al-Jamald
24 16 Ilm al-Raml (Science of the Sands)e
25 32 Letter Source-formsf & Five Hsingg
26 64 I Ching/Chess/DNAh
27 128 BEI from South Seasi
28 256 IFA from central Africaj
29 512 Facetsk exist as 512 plank intervals in a Hyper6-Kleinian Bottle

and also appear in the 512nion hypercomplex algebra. Limit of
short term memory 29
a. Yang is a variable for the Unseen Cause and Yin is a variable for the Ard which moves in response to
the action of the unseen cause.
b. Represented by celestial lights represented by Sun, Planets, Stars and Moon.
c. As seen in the Ho and Lo River maps which have three Yin or Yang lines.
239
d. Cf. Meaning of Man. op.cit.

e. Skinner, S. [1980] Terrestrial astrology : divination by geomancy. London ; Boston : Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
f. Meaing here the letter source forms of the semetic languages of which the earliest example is Ugrit
which has thirty two cuniform letters.
g. Transformations represented by Earth, Wood, Fire, Metal, and Water.
h. Goldenberg, D.S. [1975] “The Algebra of the I Ching and its Philosophical Significance” in Journal of
Chinese Philosophy. Volume 2, pp. 149-179, March.
i. Lessa, Wm. A. “The Chinese Trigrams in Micronesia” in Journal of American Folklore 82(1969) 356-
62. See also Lessa, Wm. A. “Divining from Knots in the Carolines” in Journal of the Polynesian Soci-
ety 68(1959) 188-204.
j. Gleason, J. [1973] A recitation of IFA Oracle of Yoruba. N.Y. Grossman Pub.
k. No known historical heuristic exists for this level.
Depending on the complexity of the situation we can use these 2N qualitative

categories to categorize the interaction and interpenetration of N things and their N2
relations341.
In Homeopathy the system is inside and the meta-system is outside. In

Acupuncture the meta-system is inside and the system is outside. There exists
another higher form of healing in which these two are simultaneously true. In this,
higher form of healing we see “the universe as a big man and man as a little universe”
as explained by Ibn al-Arabi. This means whatever sickness that someone has
manifests in their social relations with other. The social and the psychological are
merely mirrors of each other. In Homeopathic healing there is an annihilation of the
disease through an artificial pattern of traces that produces health when the two wave
forms cancel with each other. In Acupuncture there is an inward sea of a meta-system
which contains all possible patterns. By introducing a pattern of needles on the
surface of the body where the Minor Yang acupuncture points appear the restricted
economy of the disease is broken and one is returned to the overall set of all possible
patterns in the probability wave prior to the observation of the disease. In reflexive
healing the fusion of the social and psychological is realized. The distortions of the
many mirrors in the mirrorhouse cancel each other out. At that level there are four
properties to mirrors: reflective, translucent, transparent, opaque. Translucent is the
middle non-dual term between transparent and opaque. This is the chiasm between
these extreme opposites. Reflectivity is a singularity in the field of the interfering
mirrors at the reflexive level. When we combine by conjunction the sea of meanings
and the annihilation of opposites we get the reflexive mirroring at the level of the
social-psychological. In Buddhism this kind of healing is done between master and
student of Zen by use of Koans. Similar healing practices directed at the disturbances
of the self appear in Sufism under the auspices of Islam.
341. This is the meaning of the difference between the Ho River Map and the Lo River Map with respect to the Trigrams of the I
Ching.
240
Reflexive healing is the highest form of cure for the self. We get a glimpse of
it in our own tradition where Plato says he has never written about what he is most
interested in. After he says that if any one were qualified to write about it would
surely be him, but that it is impossible to express and so cannot be written about. That
thing which most concerns him occurs when people are close companions for a long
time and then it jumps like a spark from heart to heart. This is an excellent account
of transmission. This is Plato’s ownmost concern. His writings portray the reflexive
world of dialog. Within those dialogs there are two that stand out. These are the Laws
that show us an autopoietic social structure built in words and the Republic which is
a dissipative structure that is ultimately unlivable by any but the Gods. If we interpret
the letters as the System and enlightenment as the Meta-system then we see that the
dialogs present us with an ironic picture of the reflexive level with embedded
pictures of the autopoietic and dissipative thrown in for good measure. So Plato can
be seen as embodying this same structure of the special systems. We can also see this
structure in the work of Kierkegaard. If we inspect his work we find the following
levels inhabited by his philosophical characters.
Figure 73:
absurd (meta-paradox)
Transcendental Religion = Pure Presence Being
paradox = dissipative
Immanent Religion = Process Being ARISTOPHANSES
humor = autopoietic -------------------------------------------------------
Morality = Hyper Being PLATO
irony = reflexive
Aesthetic = Wild Being
daemon
When we look closely we see that Kierkegaard’s series of stages of the secular
to the religious life is a good approximation of the series of the Kinds of Being
interspersed with the embodiments of the special systems. Also we find that Plato
deals with all the levels up to and including humor while Aristophanes deals with all
the levels beyond humor. So even though Plato’s works embody the structure of the
special systems the content only deals with half of that structure which is completed
by Aristophanes.
Plato deals with healing on the reflexive level as does Aristophanes.

Aristophanses takes on the political demigods while Plato takes on the sophists. By
giving us a clear picture of sophistry, of those magicians of logos who manipulate
the unseen for their own advantage, he helps us to avoid sophistry ourselves and also
helps us to recognize it so we do not fall into it inadvertently. Aristophanes does
something similar for the political demigods. Both together give us a rich and
profound, as well as humorous, basis for living our lives free of verbal magic and
241
politically destructive behavior.
Reflexive healing, together with homeopathy and acupuncture provide a

glimpse of a higher level Emergent Meta-systemic level of healing. In terms of
enlightenment that level corresponds to the jeweled net of Indra. When the disease
of the self is annihilated, and we have fallen into the sea of meanings, and we have
realized the mirroring between man and the universe, then all that is left is the
realization that the EMS cycle is reflecting around all the jewels in the network all
the jewels.
14. Anomalous Science

Science explores the physus directly and the logos indirectly. As Kant pointed
out Analysis must processed on the basis of a prior synthesis. Logos is seen to be the
source of that prior synthesis. We project the “I” (ego) as the subject of that synthesis
which is recognized to be a transcendental projection prior to the subjective
consciousness. Kant contrasts to the transcendental subject a noumenal
transcendental object. He hypothesizes that it is God which acts upon these two
transcendentals to maintain their coherence. Phenomenology also requires this same
transcendental framework, but then brackets anything that lies beyond experience as
given doing away with the everything taking place behind the scenes. It reduces the
framework to the experienced vector of the intentional morphe acting on the hyle of
sensation. This transformation is similar to the reduction by mathematical category
theory of all the different categories to the arrows (morphisms) leaving aside the
elements of the categories342. There is an arrow of intentionality from subject to
object. That arrow may be seen as the carrier of coherence so that the transcendental
framework is no longer necessary as a basis. We only pay for this move by being
restricted to description instead of explanation. Critical philosophy gives up the
proof of dogmatism and phenomenology gives up the explanations of causality
basically acceding to Hume’s critique of causality that Kant attempted to answer. Yet
even a phenomenological description is based on duality of the active intentional
morphe over against the passive hyle. If phenomenology is dualistic in this way then
how much more so is critical and dogmatic philosophy. In this implicit foundation
on dualism science follows philosophy. All sciences either describe, explain or
prove. Generally they attempt to prove, and when that fails they attempt to explain,
and when that fails they attempt to describe. The combination of these three ever
weaker approaches to understand phenomena is called the formal structural system.
Formalisms embody proofs. Structuralisms embody explanations. Systems embody
descriptions. When these three are combined we get a very powerful means of
dealing with the various domains of disciplines which allows them to be treated
rigorously. Science in general applies reductionism to the physus and skepticism to
342. Arbib, M.A. and Manes, S.G. [1975] Arrows, Structures and Functors: The Categorical Imperative. London, Academic Press.
242
the logos. The formal structural system is an ensemble that can withstand extreme
reduction and skepticism. In the pursuit of science we define forms and we attempt
to produce viable formalisms within a domain. Then we attempt to extend the power
of our formalism by reapplying it to the content of the forms reflectively. When this
fails we fall back on descriptions of the wholes we discover in terms of systems. This
results in formal structural systematic theories. We apply to those theories an
extreme of skepticism which results in a plethora of competing theories each of
which covers the domain to a different degree and to a different depth. The continual
critique of theories which embody formal structural systems provides the motive
force behind scientific discovery. A given theory will have various anomalies.
Science progresses by discovering ways to encompass the anomalies and provide a
formal structural systematic theory that minimizes anomalies. This leads to the
distinction between revolutionary and normal science propounded by Kuhn.
However, change within the tradition does not happen only on the paradigmatic
level. Instead emergent change may occur on any level of the tradition. These levels
include absolute, existence, ontos, episteme, paradigm, theory, fact and given.
Sudden far reaching change may occur at any of these levels of the scientific
tradition. The tradition can be seen as alternating between revolutionary and normal
phases at each of its levels. But what is maintained throughout is the criteria of
common experience propounded by Aristotle. In other words, the edifice of science
is built out of what is recognized by the preponderance of the members of the
scientific community. Experimental results must be verifiable and theories must be
universally recognized and designated as real, true, present and identical, in order to
form a basis of normal science. Revolutionary science is a shadow that haunts
normal science. It occurs because some individuals deviate from the common view
and occasionally they turn out to be right and the community of scientists recognize
that and incorporate it into the received tradition by changing the basis on which it
operates. Dogmatic traditions have heresies which are excommunicated and their
proponents killed. The scientific tradition is critical and as such can contain
divergent views within itself which are the source for the mutation of the tradition
itself as it revolves between normal and revolutionary phases. Around the critical
pivot between proof and description science revolves as a fine balancing act between
the maintenance of the tradition and the prudent acceptance of change. We can
describe a myriad of divergent points of view within the cultural as phenomenology
does but it is only by means of critique which pursues explanation based on
formalisms that an advancing scientific practice can be built. It is based on
continuous reference to the physical realm through experiment. Reduction and
skepticism are extreme forms of testing which establishes a designated reality, or
truth, or identity, or presence. Truth is seen only in terms of the verification of
theoretical statements arising in the logos. The principle of excluded middle adduced
by Aristotle is applied to define self identity within the theoretical structural system.
The appearances of experience (what is presented in a particular domain of
manifestation) are rendered coherent by the projection of models that strive for
243
consistency and completeness. These models are continuously compared to the

results of experiment for verification. The experimental apparatus is compared to the
theory for its validation. The work of science is the maintenance of the projection of
Being as a delimited realm within the haze of myriad appearances. The discipline we
apply with rigor to a domain establishes this domain of essences. The formal
relations between essences solidify our world. The structural relations between
essences uncover causal and statistical connections within the world. The descriptive
relations between essences which is the subject of phenomenology produce the
phenomena that we experience in our lifeworld. The lifeworld is the surface of
appearances within which we lead our lives. Beyond that is the realm of essences that
have Being beyond the process of becoming. Critical Science strives to uncover that
realm of essences and establish a coherent projection of theory on experimental
experience that gives depth to the lifeworld. Kierkegaard sees that as ascending the
various levels he posits between secular and religious. When that enterprise pulls
free of the lifeworld as Husserl describes in Krisis, then the result is nihilistic
destruction of meaning that we experience in modern life resulting in the nihilistic
twin horns of alienation and anomie. When this disconnection between the lifeworld
and the designated scientific reality occurs then twin responses which are also
nihilistic of dogmatism or relativism that correspond to the formal and descriptive
approaches that bracket critical explanation that maintains the designated reality of
the realm of essences. The scientific tradition is itself generator of nihilism because
its main actions are reduction and skepticism which produce the formal structural
theoretical system but as a by product destroy meaning and devastate the context of
life. Thus the very thing that gives us insight into the foundations of our life within
the world is something that destroys our sense of meaning in the world and makes
necessary something like the Logotherapy practiced by Victor Frankl343 which we
can call Philosophical Mentoring344.
Now this approach of the dominate culture toward science rooted in Aristotle
might be contrasted to an alternative form of science championed by Plato. This
alternative science is the dual of Aristotelian science based on what is held in
common by the community. Instead Plato suggests we focus on anomalies and see
what we can make of them. In other words Plato suggests that the phase of
revolutionary science should predominate over normal science. This is exactly the
opposite of Aristotle’s position and the predominate tack taken in our western
scientific tradition. Aristotle attempts to brush anomalies under the carpet until that
343. Frankl, Viktor Emil. [1955] The doctor and the soul; an introduction to logotherapy. Tr. from the German, by Richard and
Clara Winston. New York, Knopf. See also Frankl, Viktor Emil.[1984] Man's search for meaning. New York : Washing-
ton Square Press/Pocket Books, 1985.
344. See Palmer, Kent [1998] “Philosophical Mentoring: A Research Proposal and Report on Preliminary Results” also a presen-
tation called “Philosophical Mentoring: A Fundamental Theory.” (manuscript; see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/
philcounsel.htm)
244
fails utterly and we are forced to change our assumptions or some other aspect of the
framework of the tradition. Plato instead revels in the anomaly itself. He only uses
the common as a starting point for elaboration of the anomaly. So Plato does not do
away with the common but only accepts it as a starting point for exploration of the
significance of what stands out as extraordinary within commonly agreed upon
norms of communal experience. What is interesting is what is extra-ordinary. Plato
does not attempt to suppress the irreducible difference but exalts it over the norm. So
in Plato’s dialogues we see a group of unique historical characters engaged in
eccentric discourse which exalts the strangest and the most unique of these people
which is Socrates.The strangeness of Socrates comes from the fact that he is
equivalent of the Buddha in his own social milieu of Fourth Century BC Athens. The
beauty of Plato’s work is how he builds a rich portrait of these unique and eccentric
individuals and their world. By contrast Aristotle gives us caricatures of his
precursors whose only duty is to form the ground for the pronouncement of his own
opinion. Alan Blum has laid out those discursive differences between Plato and
Aristotle which form the backdrop for all Theorizing and using Socrates345 as an
example. Theory may either attempt to project a theoretical regime that covers
everything as Aristotle attempts to do. Or theory may explore the implications of
specific concrete examples that stand out from the norm accepted in common by the
community. This Other of Aristotelian science has all but been forgotten within our
tradition, yet its possibility still exists and it is this alternate Platonic science that we
attempt to pursue here. Homeopathy and Acupuncture appear as similar Platonic
alternatives to the Aristotelian norm of Alleopathic Medical Science.
When we look at the anomaly our attention is drawn to it by the breaking of

the norm346. It is the exception to the law that leads us to isolate certain phenomena
from others, and we then wonder at its uniqueness and usually its inexplicability.
Explanation normally occurs by relating some phenomena to the norm. When the
norm is broken by the anomaly then the norm itself is put into question. Plato looks
for the anomaly and tires to adduce what it tells us about the norm rather than the
other way around. Normal science repeatedly tries to sweep the anomalies under the
carpet. First, of course, we must be sure that the norm is well framed so that its
violation is clear. But then by contrasting norm and anomaly we explore the basis of
the norm and perhaps derive deeper principles than mere subsumption of the
anomaly into another norm. Subsumption by which science mutates and advances
assumes that all anomalies are merely local violations that a deeper norm may
convert into explained phenomena. What subsumption does not address is the
contrast between anomaly and norm itself. If we push back the anomalies by
successive subsumptions we merely radicalize the phenomena of the anomaly. This
is what produces the emergent event in our scientific tradition. The emergent event
345. Blum, A. [1978] Socrates: the original and its images. London ; Boston : Routledge and K. Paul.
346. Humphreys, W.C. [1968] Anomalies and Scientific Theories. San Francisco, Freeman Cooper and Co.
245
either arises within by the radical change of explanatory basis or without by the
appearance of new phenomena demanding explanation. Emergent events strike
directly at the norm we project on experience as a socially constructed reality, truth,
identity or presence. The tradition produces the emergent event out of itself as its
ownmost possibility. The difference is that Aristotelian science attempts to suppress
and prevent the arising of the emergent event while Platonic science attempts to draw
out and exploit the indications of the advent of the emergent event by exploration of
the anomaly using reason and theory to adduce its implications. Around the fringes
of normal science individual researchers have always exploited this possibility in
attempt to bring about the resolution of the crisis that multiple unexplained
anomalies creates. But normal science itself avoids the elucidation of the anomaly
because it calls into question the norm in ever more radical ways. With each
subsumption an ever deeper crisis is produced because we are confronted with an
open horizon of ever deeper norms with no end in sight. The more we explain the
deeper the questions and further uncovered unknowns appear. This fact that norms
themselves are temporary and continually mutating has the effect of calling into
question the whole procedure of projecting norms. Maybe if we looked deeper into
the anomalies we would discover why this continually deepening crisis is produced.
Plato’s method does exactly that, it looks deeper into the anomalies and asks why any
anomalies should exist at all and attempts, by questioning the anomaly closely to
understand the nature of the norm which will not change with subsumption. Norms
exemplify the nomos. When we first begin building a norm we attempt to make it
regular and symmetric. But as we go deeper and deal with the anomalies then
asymmetries are introduced into the picture of the norm that make it much more
complicated. Each subsumption of anomaly deepens the norm but also de-
normalizes it because it introduces more and more sophisticated deep structuring to
cover more of existence as found under the rubric of the essences that have reality,
truth, identity and presence. Anomalies exist outside that umbrella of acceptable
phenomena that have succumbed to explanation. We can describe the anomalies
which defy deduction from known laws. But we cannot explain them except as
“exceptions that prove the rule”. Anomalies indicate to us yet another approach
toward existence that holds sway in revolutionary science. That is what Peirce called
Abduction, hypothesis from single cases. Perice points out that abduction is the third
combination of the steps in the syllogism that was ignored in the development of
logic and which science needs to operate. Dogmatism needs only induction and
deduction in order to apply its norms to instances. Critical philosophy which
underlies science demands the use of hypothesis on the basis of theory in order to
formulate disconfirming experiments. Thus abduction is the crucial basis of
revolutionary science necessary to leave the dogmatic phase of normal scientific
investigation. But abduction from theory is different from abduction from anomalies.
This is the crucial step that Plato’s approach to science takes. In one we are extending
the norm and seeing confirmation while in the other we are questioning radically the
norm and exploring the implications of disconfirmation. Disconfirmation is the
246
radical basis of science because it is the thing we don’t want that must be sought in
order to discover the underlying order in things beyond our projections. Anomalies
highlight the difference between Being and existence. Anomalies’ brute existence
beyond the umbrella of essential subsumed Being continually call Being itself into
question.
Beyond description, prior to explanation and proof, there is givenness which

the anomaly exemplifies. when we take the Platonic approach to Science we delve
into the givenness attempting to discover the distinctions that derive from the things
themselves which appear as natural segmentations of the given natural complex. As
Plato says we need to make our cut at the joint not through the bone as reductionism
tends to do. When we confront the anomaly per se we get some insight into existence
that defies the subsumption into Being. The emergent event is the radicalized process
of subsumption of the anomaly. It happens in stages, however, not all at once. First
something is out there but we do not know what it is -- it’s the unheard of, undreamt
of, unknown. It is given but withheld at the same time. At that moment the existence
of the emergent event is highlighted. After its being given it is described and isolated
and determined as something unknown but delimited. After we describe it then we
try to understand it. We understand it by its differences from the norm. Finally, once
it is subsumed by changing the norm to accommodate it, then it is seemingly fully
comprehended. Understanding by seeing differences from the norm is a process of
structural reduction of the anomaly in order to determine the limits of explanations
that are available. Comprehension finally occurs when we are able to project our
formalism onto the anomaly by induction or deduction from a changed norm. The
trajectory of the emergent event from brute givenness of existence into the realm of
accepted essences occurs in stages, and makes visible the inner structure of Being
itself that is fragmented into various kinds of Being which support each step in the
process of assimilation. Dogmatic philosophy does not encounter anything but Pure
Being. Critical Philosophy inaugurates the search for a process Being that can
explain the unfolding of the scientific tradition. This search was consummated by
Husserl who discovered how to retain the critical transcendental framework, yet
provide an underlying process level of Being to underwrite both the evolution of
things and the evolution of knowledge about things. Phenomenology provides the
basis by elucidating the difference between essences and simple ideas that in
philosophy up to the advent of phenomenology were assumed to be the same. Ideas
are static abstractions and essences are unfolding constraints on, and coherences of,
attributes that possess a subtle but profound developmental dynamic which can be
described as a meta-essence. Heidegger attempted to produce the monolith of Being
that combined both the static mode and the dynamic mode believing that he had
finally solved the age old split between Parmenides and Heraclitus. However, this
solution was short lived because it immediately became clear that the difference that
makes a difference between those two modes (ready to hand and present at hand) was
another kind of Being radically different from either Process or Pure Being. I call that
247
Hyper Being by reference to what Merleau-Ponty calls the Hyper Dialectic between
Hiedegger’s Process Being and Sartre’s Nothingness (its antinomy). Heidegger
called it Being (crossed out) and Derrida called it DifferAnce (differing and
deferring). Heidegger also talks about it in terms of “It Gives” and we can think of it
as “the Being of ‘Being of Being’” where ‘the Being of Being’, i.e. IS is, is the
Monolith. Hyper Being is the IT that GIVES the Monolith of Pure and Process Being
together. Phenomenology leads us directly to the distinction between these three
kinds of Being because once we isolate the static purely present simple abstract ideas
from the dynamic constraints and coherences on attributes called essences, then the
difference between these becomes problematic. It turns out that the difference
between them is just as strange as quantum mechanical madness or relativity theory
discovers in the physics if not stranger. The anomaly appears out of this strangeness.
In is that movement of isolation we recognize that the anomaly has the nature of
Kant’s noumena but manifest in the world as a knot of paradox. There an otherness
to the totalitarian domination of Being appears. It cannot be subsumed to either the
ideas nor to the projected essences of things that are designated as true, real, present,
or self-identical. Even our descriptions fail to capture the Actuality of the facticity of
the anomaly because it defies our categories and shakes the foundations of the house
of cards built of interlocking essences and ideas. We are led as Merleau-Ponty was
to posit another meta-level of Being that is prior to this indescribable eruption. He
called it Wild Being, i.e. what is prior to the Hyper-dialectic between Process Being
and Nothingness (i.e. DifferAnce). Heidegger called it the Fourfold of the mutual
mirroring of the dualities of Being. We can describe it as <The Being of “Being of
‘Being of Being’”> or as the Being of the IT that gives the Monolith of Being. We
know that there is a stage when we feel something is out there before we isolate it
and recognize its protean nature defying our categories which generate our essences
and ideas. Castoriadis calls this the Magma of Chaotic Being. This meta-level of
Being prior to our ability to indicate the anomaly decisively even as a knot of
paradox is the point where the anomaly is still merged in the chaos which is excluded
from Being. It is a rarefied and subtle kind of Being that borders on the brute limits
of Existence. In the Indo-European tradition it was experienced when warriors like
Achilles went into a Berserker state, that it is only approached at the limits of altered
states of consciousness. There when all the non-isolated anomalies merge into a
sense of monstrosity which we only experience with acute horror we recognize the
antipodal limit which is the furthest point from the normal and thus defines
“normness” from its extreme. The fundamental principle is that it is the rare
unconditioned event that is the measure of the norm. Just as we only really know
what a system is capable of when we stress it so the real, identical, true, or present
limits of our scientific tradition only are known with the arising of the emergent
event. The emergent event, i.e. the ultimate extreme, organizes everything within the
tradition because the tradition must pro-actively respond to these events. When they
occur they reveal the true underpinnings of our tradition and the real articulation of
Being into fragmented kinds that are the face of the world. The stages of emergence
248
reveal the inner structure of Being under stress as the most radical challenges to the
will to power are fended off and subsumed. The will to power occurs as the attempt
to impose the restricted economy of the system within the meta-system that exhausts
the cyclical eternal return of the same. Just as viable societies organize themselves
to account for the possibility of war, as Plato says so, the epistmic and ontological
underpinnings of our tradition appear when new things come into existence that are
genuinely unheard of and novel. Our tradition is organized to handle these
occurrences which cause it to transform the underlying ontological basis in order to
mutate the norm to handle the radical challenge. When we look closely at the
anomaly this is the response we see. All responses to the anomalies are the same. The
tradition does not respond differently at different times, but at the meta-level the
meta-essence of the tradition itself is fixed as a set of synergized, yet fragmented,
dynamics. So if we look at the individual anomaly we are struck by this difference
from the norm. But if we look at the response to the anomaly we always see the same
series of unfolding stages, i.e. the fragmentation of Being, that unfolds as meta-
levels as needed to cope with the radical nature of the anomaly. In other words, we
need to look not at the specificity of the anomaly but the reaction of the normative
projection. This is always the same. It is incredibly conserved by the Indo-european
worldview because as we go into its history we can recognize the fragments of Being
as for instance seen in the differences between major gods in the Vedas which was
explored in the author’s Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void347.
This is the true object of Platonic science. The implications of the anomaly are
always the revelation of the true, real, identical, present nature of the normative
process. By focusing on the advent of the emergent event out of the hidden shadows
of existence into the Clearing of Being, we discover the infrastructure of the
projection mechanism that produces the clearing, and thus gain collective self-
knowledge higher than the mere knowledge of things. Knowledge of things always
advances but collective self-knowledge ever recedes. Collective self-knowledge
advances momentarily when we stop seeing anomalies as isolated differences from
the norm and instead look at the way the norm responds which at the meta-level is
always the same, i.e. by unfolding step by step the emergent meta-levels of Being
itself, and thus revealing its own meta-essence, which like the roots in Indo-
European languages for Being, is inherently fragmented, yet synergetic. When we
look at these synergies we see the face of the world. For with the advent of Wild
Being we see not just a difference of kind but a difference of integrity between the
different layers of Being. Wild Being mixes continuity and discontinuity, or order
and disorder, chaotically. Hyper Being is continually “slip sliding away” from itself,
always differing and deferring. Process Being has streams of continuity and
unfolding as in a developmental series. Pure Being has illusory continuity that
projects the appearances of stability that is designated as real, true, identical or
present. Each meta-level has its own integrity beyond the mere difference of kind.
347. (manuscript, see http://dialog.net:85/homepage/fbpath.htm)
249
Ideas live within the realm of Pure Being. Essences of things cannot ultimately be
reduced to this static image but differentiate into meta-essences as discontinuities
appear in their unfolding. The difference between unfolding essences and static
abstractions produces a strange effect which is non-reducible to either. This
difference separates Ideas and Essences into different kinds, but it is not until the
advent of Wild Being that we realize each meta-level of Being has its own different
form of integrity. It is this radical difference that goes beyond kindness that allows
them to synergize. In each synergy of the kinds of Being the infra-structure of the
world is manifest. It is this infra-structure that underlies the articulation of the world
that Heidegger calls, following Socrates, the Fourfold. The world has the structure
of difference between Heaven, Earth or Mortals and Immortals in the mythopoetic
era, and in our own era this translates into the differences between Physus and Logos
or Limited and Unlimited (Apeiron). These quadrants participate in a mutual
mirroring. The nature of the mirroring is manifest as the infrastructure of the meta-
level of Being which are four in number. As we saw the meta-levels represent
increasing intensity of the mirroring. At the radical limit of existence the mirroring
becomes infinitely deep interpenetration. Each quadrant of the fourfold is a different
manifestation of that intensification of mirroring. The fourfold of Heaven/Earth//
Mortals/Immortals is the disposition of the world in the mythopoetic era. This is
transferred in the metaphysical era into the difference between Apeiron/Peiron
(Limitless/Limited) and the subdivision of the Peiron into Physus and Logos. In both
eras there is a mirroring of the quadrants the dualities of the fourfold. We see in this
mirroring the non-duality and nomos (ordering) and even more fundamentally of Rta
(Right), Good and Wyrd (Fate).
Figure 74:
Physus/Logos (non-dual = order)

Limited/Unlimited (non-dual=right)
Have/Have Not (non-dual = good)
Exist/Exist Not (non-dual=fate)
Figure 75:
Immortal/Mortal (non-dual = right)

Earth/Heaven (non-dual=order)
Have/Have Not (non-dual = good)
Exist/Exist Not (non-dual=fate)
What we notice is that Right and Order non-dualities change places in the two
eras. We see this in the relation between constitutional government and kingship. In
kingship the rights of the king are more fundamental than the law whereas in
constitutional government the constitution embodies the nomos, while the Bill of
Rights is a supplement to the constitution giving rights to the citizens who formerly
had none. Rights are distributed to all the citizens instead of being vested in the King
250
alone. It took more than 2000 years for constitutional government to replace kingship
after the advent of the metaphysical era. With the metaphysical realm human
generated law replaced the laws of the gods, but it remained subservient to kingship
up until very recently. But with the advent of the metaphysical era the rights of man
superseded the rights of gods, and man took on himself composition of his own laws.
These laws were no longer ecstatic speech of those who “channeled” the gods
especially at the oracle sites. The mythopoetic era was opened with the establishment
of the first oracle at Delphi. It ended with the establishment of humanly based laws
such as that of Solon, or Hamarabi. But even with the displacement of the role of the
gods, the precedence of Right over Order was carried on by man within himself. But
the externalization of the laws in the form of the constitution, prefigured by Plato’s
Laws, is the fulfillment of the metaphysical era. It is no accident that we are
discovering the “laws of nature” at the same time we are making our own human
social and political laws. The dispersal of rights into the citizens from the King was
also prefigured by Athenian tragic experimentation with democracy. But the
fundamental tension within the Western Tradition is always between the Right and
the Order as intrinsic non-dualities that exist below the surface of dualities that we
see when we look at our worldview and its will to power on the globe.
The norm is the expression of the Order. The Aristotelian emphasis on

experience held in common embodies the order at the level of the dualities. That
experience is the common unfolding of the physus resonating with the upwelling of
the speech and thought. When this resonance is broken then we get the sophistry
which Aristotle perfects, and the alienation from nature exemplified by the pursuit
of natural philosophy. Nomos appears in the physus as natural laws and in speech as
grammar. These both point back to the pure order of mathematics which combines
the order of grammar with the regularities of things. We quantify the things and
produce an order like that of grammar which allows the manipulation of quantities.
It is significant in this respect that the letters in the first alphabets also stood for
numbers as they do in Arabic348. So it is possible to go directly from language to
number and from things to counting. Letter forms were abstracted into pure
countable quantities as were things which lost their attributes. In both cases it was
quality that was suppressed in favor of quantization. Number became the abstraction
of the norm that underlies both speech and thought as well as the unfolding of things.
The Nomos is generally something static which easily gets out of

synchronization with states of affairs in the world. This difference is highlighted by
348. The sociable number group of order 28 is an image of the holonomic relations between the Arabic letters. This is a more in-
teresting rleation between numbers and letters than the traditional correspondance which has an element of arbitrariness
that negates all efforts to use the numerical values to derive hidden meanings. The first 22 letters have a fixed numerical
correspondance but the last six letters are in dispute as to their numerical values. There is an interesting relations between
the structure of the letters (as divided by sun and moon and in relation to those that appear at the beginning of Suras in
Quran), the sociable group of order 28 and the deep structure pentagrams made up of five yin and yang lines.
251
RTA (right)349. RTA originally meant “Cosmic Harmony”. In Greek it is ARTE, or

excellence. We still differentiate the law from the spirit of the law. This adaptability
to circumstances beyond the law or going beyond the norm in performance (arte) has
a dynamic quality not comprehended within the law. We can see in this the
difference between static and dynamic clinging. We statically cling through the law
which does not change and is incredibly conservative. We dynamically cling through
the adaptability and excelling in performance exceeding the common. From this
analysis we can see that Aristotle’s science emphasizes the role of nomos over RTA.
Plato on the other hand emphasizes RTA over nomos. We see in the anomalies the
spirit of the law in action, because these call forth the excellence of the Western
world. We see in the adaptation of the norm the inner dynamism of the projection
mechanism of illusory continuity. In the tension between nomos and RTA, the
underlying non-dualities below the surface of the duality of the world, we see the
fundamental interaction that drives the worldview and determines its infrastructure.
The anomaly is the key to unlocking this secret. But not if we treat it like Aristotle
as only the means of subsumption to establish a deeper law. Only when we consider
the anomaly as the irritant of the norm and look to the response of the norm do we
see, as Plato did, into the inner structure of the worldview itself and thus ourselves.
349. Miller, J. [1988] The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas. London, Routledge Kegan Paul.
252
Figure 76: Non-duals within Dualities of the World
Physus Logos
unfolding unfolding
natural
forms Order andthought
speech
non-dual
nomos
Metaphysical
World
Limited Unlimited
apeiron
peiron
Right Being
non-dual
rta, arte
Have Not Have

Good
non-dual
Existence Non-Existence
Fate
non-dual
Beyond Being
wyrd
Actualized Non-Actualized
Source
non-dual
Single Source
Therefore it is important for us to explore the non-dual substructure of the
world that goes on deeper into the Good and Fate as even deeper non-dualities. We
can only do that by looking at Wild Being and beyond into the bedrock of existence
itself. We need a theory of holonomics that allows us to define very precisely the
nature of the non-dual. We get that by exploring anomalies and thinking through
their implications. It is the anomalies in the physus, logos and nomos that give us a
clue to the construction of a fundamental science of holonomics. We achieve that by
drawing out the implications of the anomaly for the norm, not as an exception, but
253
as an exemplar of the RTA in relation to the nomos, that is of dynamic clinging to

static clinging. Being has been called from the Buddhist perspective by C.G. Chang
a subtle clinging and craving350. But it takes two forms related to either Pure Being
or Process Being. The difference between these is the provenance of Hyper Being
(Neither... nor...) and the mixture of these is the provenance of Wild Being (Both...
and...). Plato opens up for us a different way of pursuing science that leads to self-
knowledge rather than knowledge of the Other. Plato shows us how to draw out the
implications of the anomaly. We use a series of anomalies that form families, and
then we play these families off each other in order to see beyond the anomalies in the
logos (as expressed in algebras), beyond the anomalies in the Physus (as expressed
in solitary particle wave formations), beyond the anomalies in nomos (as expressed
in the topological formations discovered by Mobius and Klein). Seeing how these
series of anomalies mirror each other yet differ and then play off of each other gives
us insight into the inner structure of the nomos. In that inner structure the nomos
breaks its own rules in very specific and precise ways that allows us to describe
exactly the non-dually dual holonomic states. With this encounter we see mirrored
in the depths of the nomos the imprint of Rta (Right). In the meditation on the
anomalies as families that are mutually elucidating, we see the image of the spirit of
the law in the law itself. This fusion of the non-duals (of heart and mind) brings with
it the direct encounter with the next deeper non-dual which is the Good (the source
of endless variety) that occurs at the interface between Being and Having. Beyond
that is the even deeper non-dual of Fate which brings us out of Being into touch with
the bedrock of existence. Holonomics is about the interaction of the non-dualities at
the core of our worldview and their relation to the surface dualities which define so
much of our experience. When we look into these dualities we discover the mutual
mirroring of the fourfold of the world which Heidegger describes in “The Origin of
the Work of Art” based on Socrates earlier description of the world in the Gorgias.
That mutual mirroring of the fourfold has a specific structure that is described by the
special systems, and amplified by other anomalous series like that of the solitons or
the topological surfaces. Taken together with the mathematical grounding in the
nomos and the physical examples of these anomalous Special Systems found in the
physus, the logos of the theory of the special systems achieves scientific
respectability and goes beyond that to found a new kind of Holonomic scientific
enterprise. That enterprise looks for examples of Holonomic Special Systems in
various disciplines and attempts to discover the strange supra-rational norm that
binds the various families of anomalies together. It also looks into history of various
cultures for artifacts that embody previous knowledge concerning the special
systems or the Emergent Meta-systems. It finds these artifacts in Chinese and Islamic
traditional sciences as well as within the history of the Indo-european worldview
both in India and in Europe. Between looking for ancient remnants and modern
350. Chang, Chen-chi [1971] The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: the philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism. University Park, Pennsyl-
vania State University Press.1971
254
examples of anomalous special systems and emergent meta-systems there is much

work to be done understanding the mathematical underpinnings of the theory in the
various underlying anomalous mathematical structures which present to us a strange
synergy that as yet has not been elucidated.
15. Discovery
The discovery of the special systems is an excellent example of serendipity. It
resulted from the collision of two completely separate lines of investigation with an
Aha! realization that these two divergent strands were intrinsically related. It
occurred in the summer of 1993 at a time when I was studying the application of
George Klir’s General Systems Theory to the processes that underlay the use of
methodologies in software design. These studies had always gone on in a broad
philosophical context and I was engaged in attempting to redefine General Systems
Theory in relation to the methodological distinctions that Klir discusses in his
Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. The lattice of methodological distinctions
that were intimately connected to the viewpoints on real-time design ended in the
creation of the reals as the model of illusory continuity upon the background of
which dynamical systems where described and measured. On the other hand for a
long time I had been studying Chinese Traditional sciences such as acupuncture351
and was using the bifurcation of hyper-complex algebras as a model of those
autopoietic systems. One day I realized that the hyper-complex algebras began in the
reals and the lattice of methodological distinction ended in the reals. So I wondered
what would happen if I connected these two very different structures together in the
same model. This effectively created a bridge between General Systems Theory
construed in terms of orderings and the models of autopoietic systems that I had
developed separately based on Hyper-complex algebras. The combined structure had
many implications that I am still exploring. The stages of the development of these
ideas are recorded in two series of working papers called On the Social Construction
of Emergent Worlds and Steps to the Threshold of the Social. The papers were
concentrated on the implications of the extension of the autopoietic theory into the
social based on the analogies to the hyper-complex algebras. However, they cover
the entire structure and its derivation and philosophical grounding with extensive
work on the implications of Goertzel’s ‘Magician’ systems. These papers attempt to
found the new disciplines of Autopoietic Sociology and Computational Sociology,
as well as ground a new Social Phenomenology. But the discovery of the general
theory of ultra-efficacious special systems applies to many different fields which
have been haunted by their lack of scientific basis due to the fact that what they
describe and explain follows strange hard to capture rules which do not seem to fit
normal physical models. When the subjects of these other sciences have some aspect
351. Porkert, M. [1974] The Theoretical Foundations of Chinese Medicine. Cambridge Mass., MIT Press. See also Porkert, M.
[1983] The Essentials of Chinese Diagnosis. Alta medicinae Sinensis, Zurich, Switzerland, Chinese Medicine Pub.
255
which is ultra-efficacious in some sense then a study of the implications of the

general theory of ultra-efficacious phenomena should be made to see if these
mathematical analogies that have been discovered to apply to the special systems
also describe aspects of these other phenomena. There are many phenomena that
probably fit under the rubric of ultra-efficiency and the special systems that have not
been recognized because of their seeming violation of physical laws and norms. This
new science of Holonomics recognizes that there are rare exceptions to the norm that
must be studied separately and that these anomalies in various fields have functors
between them that are mediated by the theory of the special systems.
An earlier version of this paper was submitted to the International Journal of

General Systems on 11/01/95. It has grown in the process of editing and reworking
to something much larger than the original journal article. In the mean time the
working papers in the series “On the Social Construction of Emergent Worlds” and
“Steps To the Threshold of the Social” and an earlier version of this article were
published on the internet under the title Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory352.
Then, several other papers were published in rough draft form such as Autopoietic
Meta-theory353 and Deep Mathematics and Emergent Meta-systems Theory354. A
new summary of research into Emergent Meta-systems called New Monodology is
in work. And another summary work called Emergent Worlds has been begun355. A
summary of my entire philosophy in a shorter form has also been produced called
Maitreya Suttra.
16. Acknowledgments
This essay is dedicated to my grandfather and grandmother Joseph and Beulah
Emanuel.
I would like to acknowledge first the help of my teacher and mentor Ian
356,
Dallas who set me on the route that led to this discovery. I would also like to
acknowledge the contribution of Onar Aam357 who contributed an intimate
knowledge of the workings of the algebras and many useful insights that has
extended the theory in many unexpected ways. Also Ben Goertzel358 who inspired
352. http://dialog.net:85/homepage/refauto2.htm
353. http://dialog.net:85/homepage/at00v00.pdf
354. http://dialog.net:85/homepage/deepmth2.pdf
355. http://dialog.net:85/homepage/emergent.htm
356. Ian Dallas [1992] Oedipus and Dionysus.London: Frieburg Books. Curzon Distribution. Also [1990] The New Wagnerian.
Granada: Frieberg Books. Also [1989] The Ten Symphonies of Gorka Konig. London: Keagan Paul International. Also
know as Shaykh abd al-Qadir as-Sufi ad-Darqawi al-Murabit. See [1984] The Sign of the Sword. Madina Press. Also
[1981] Letter to an African Muslim. Norwich UK: Diwan Press. Also [1982] Root Islamic Education. Norwich UK: Di-
wan al-Amir Pub. Also [1988] For the Coming Man. Norwich UK: Murabitun Press.
357. http://www.stud.ux.his.no/~onar/
256
much of the theoretical work that led to the formulation of the implications of the
relation between the algebras and special systems. His model of the ‘Magician’
system helped to supply a crucial link in the puzzle that I was struggling to put
together. Thanks also goes to Leonard Woo who was working with me at the time of
the major discoveries and supplied their initial reality check. Tony (Frank) Smith359
also contributed much to our understanding of the structure of the Octonions and
their implications for the unification theory in physics. Also thanks goes to Robert J.
Cummings who read the working papers and contributed many hours of fascinating
conversation about the implications of the discovery. I would also like to mention
Dennis Keagy360 with whom I have had many interesting philosophical
conversations over coffee and who taught me about Kierkegaard. I have learned a
great deal about Acupuncture and Homeopathy from Hajj Abd al-Aziz Redpath,
Muhammad Eckhaus and Mikhail Esfandier. I am indebted to Arshad Mahmood
who proofread the previous version found many small errors which hopefully have
now been corrected. There are also many others who participate in the Thinknet
philosophy and systems theory email lists that deserve some credit through many
computer mediated conversations over the last few years. Among those lists is the
autopoiesis@yahoogroups.com list where Onar Aam and I met originally.
To find out more about those lists see http://dialog.net. The working papers
mentioned above are available from the author. You can also reach me at
palmer@dialog.net, palmer@think.net or palmer@exo.com or palmer@dialog.net.
If you discover any ultra-efficacious phenomena using this theory as guidance

please contact me, as I am collecting examples of phenomena that have relations to
structural aspects of the theory.
358. http://goertzel.org/
359. http://galaxy.cau.edu/tsmith/TShome.html
360. http://www1.occ.cccd.edu/dkeagy/default.html
257
=====================================================================
This version 49 is part of Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory.
There is a newer version 50 of this chapter which is distributed independently.
Also there is a much older version of this paper called “Research Note: Autopoietic
Reflexive Systems: A General Theory of Ultra-efficient Special Systems and a new view of
the nature of holonomics.” Version 7. Which is made available because it is simpler and for
historical purposes.
Check the Arrow repository at the University of South Australia for a copies of these other
versions as well as this version. See http://arrow.unisa.edu.au:8888/
Apeiron Press
PO Box 1632
Orange, California 92856
714-633-9508
http://dialog.net:85/homepage/apeiron.htm
kent@palmer.name
palmer@exo.com
palmer@dialog.net
palmer@netcom.com
Copyright 2000 by Kent Duane Palmer [TXu884397]
Draft #6 000219 Editorial Copy.

Draft #7 070219 Slight changes.
Not for distribution.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
This draft book is published electronically by the Author for review and comment by potential
readers. It may not be stored in any publicly accessible retrieval system nor archived in any kind
of electronic medium without permission in writing from the Author. Permission is granted for
temporary storage on personal computers and the production of a single hard copy for personal
study. Giving away or selling copies in any form is expressly forbidden.
The original is available on web pages associated with the DialogNet at http://dialog.net or http://
archonic.net or http://think.net
258
Library of Congress
Cataloging in Publication Data
Palmer, Kent Duane

http://dialog.net:85/homepage/kent_palmer.html
Introduction: An Approach to Emergent Meta-systems through Holonomics.
Bibliography
Includes Index
1. Philosophy-- Ontology
2. Philosophy - Worlds
3. Systems Theory -- Meta Systems Theory
Keywords:
Systems Theory, Dissipative Systems, Autopoietic Systems, Reflexive Systems, Recursive Systems, Meta-
Systems, Meta-systems Theory, Ontology, Existence, Emergence, Social Phenomenology, Social Theory, Ultra-
efficacity, Ultra-effectiveness, Ultra-efficiency, Holonomics, Complexnion, Quaternion, Octonion, Sedenion,
Algebra, Hyper-complex Algebras, Soliton, Soliton Breather, Instanaton, Soliton Super-Breather, Super-Conductivity,
Bose-Einstein Condensate, Super-Fluidity, Mobius Strip, Kleinian Bottle, Hyper-Kleinian Bottle, Lemniscate,
Autogenesis, Computational Sociology, Autopoietic Sociology, Social Construction, Reflexive Sociology,
Sociological Theory, Autogenesis, Gaia, Supra-rationality, Paradoxicality, Nihilism, Non-nihilistic Distinction,
Gestalt, Flow, Proto-Gestalt, Proto-Flow, Environment, Context, Situation, Milieu, Propensity, Disposition,
Tendency, Field.
259
Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory
THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

AUTOPOIETIC THEORY:
A Tutorial
Kent Palmer, Ph.D

P.O. Box 1632
Orange, CA 92856 USA
714-633-9508
palmer@exo.com
copyright 1996 Kent Palmer, all rights reserved

published on the autopoiesis@think.net email list 960116
URL http://think.net
Lesson One
1. Introduction
This tutorial will treat the ontological basis of Autopoietic Theory and its extension
into the realm of social theory. It will implicitly treat epistemology as well, and will
concentrate on the construction of a non-dual basis of theorizing about the
phenomena of life, intelligence, social and psychological phenomena. These
ontological considerations flow from the developments in this century in
Continental philosophy which has had very little impact on scientific theorizing to
date but which have a great potential for transforming the Theorizing of Western
science especially in the area of the theories concerning life, cognition, and social
phenomena. The lack of impact has several sources, one of which is the
philosophical blindness of most scientific practice, to the extreme that this defect is
generally seen as an advantage. All the while explanatory philosophy within science
itself is rampant. Basically anything that cannot be tested, is philosophy. By this
definition much of what goes on in science is implicitly philosophy on a naive
basis. Philosophizing on the basis of a avowed ignorance of even the rudiments of
Western philosophy is common. Another factor is the prevalance of nihilistic and
extreme schools of thought within philosophy itself, such as Analytic Philosophy,
256
Deconsructionism and other related Post-modernist movements. Most of these lines

of thought are repugnant to scientists and reinforces their distrust of philosophy.
However, without philosophy the meaning of scientific theories and facts remain
obscured. And many of the implicit philosophical positions within science are just
as nihilistic as the philosophical schools that cause folks that think of themselves as
scientists to blanch. In fact the Krisis that Husserl pointed out in Western Science is
still in full swing. Science has become detached from the lifeworld and teeters on
the abyss of meaninglessness and nihilism through this disconnection from the
consideration of meaning and the rise of instrumentalism. What we need to do is
bring the best insights of recent Continental philosophy to bear on our scientific
practice and use that as a context for understanding the phenomena that are
addressed by autopoietic theory and its extension into the social realm. Thereby we
will attempt to give a deeper context this important scientific theory which
addresses some of the most crucial phenomena that appear within the world, and
indeed it is a phenomenon that we are examples of ourselves. Thus in this we strive
for self understanding.
2. Caveat
In this treatment we will not be attempting to second guess Maturana or Verela.

Instead we will be taking our direction from them but attempting to produce an
image of autopoietic theory that is more philosophically sophisticated. Maturana
and Verela suffered from the same problem of most scientific theorists in that they
did not realize the effects of their ontological suppositions on the interpretation and
understanding of their theory. Thus there are many different interpretations of their
seemingly paradoxical theoretical constructs. In fact, their theory appears to have a
mystical quality from the point of view of traditional scientific theorists. Yet it has
gained popularity due to the paradoxical nature of the phenomena that it attempts to
understand by placing limits on our ability to know.
Autopoietic Theory is independent of any single author. And we are not attempting
to reconstruct the view of any particular author on the subject, but instead
attempting to construct another approach to the framing of a coherent autopoietic
theory. Our approach is through the realization of the importance of understanding
ontological and epistemological assumptions in the framing of autopoietic theory.
Thus we start out by attempting to get a clear view of the ontological background
for the theory, and then attempt to work out the best way to frame the theory given
that context.
257
Of course, the ontological context of this particular theory applies to everything

within our world, but it has special consequences for autopoietic theory, because of
the fact that autopoietic theory is in part a description of the one producing the
theory. Thus there is an important reflexive moment in autopoietic theory and the
theorizing that goes on that culminates in the theory. The ontological context allows
us to appreciate this reflexive moment and defuse some of its side effects which are
the cause of so much of the misunderstandings surrounding the theory.
3. History
In our view the first systems theorist was Plato, not Aristotle, within the Western
Tradition. In The Laws Plato produced a schema for a complete system of a city,
and much of what was later thought of as Aristotle’s systemizing thought may be
seen as an embellishment of what Plato does in The Laws. In fact it is clear that
what appears in The Laws is more like what was actually taught in Plato’s Academy
that what appears in the other Dialogues. What is of interest is that this is in fact a
lost book, in the sense that philosophers normally ignore it and place it in the realm
of political science. Political scientists tend to mention it in passing but basically
think of it as an unworkable utopia with strange characteristics that are extremely
unrealistic. So this longest and most systematic of all the dialogues has been
essentially ignored by our tradition, even though it is clearly the earliest fully
worked out systems theory, allbeit a theory of a human system.
I posit that The Laws seems so strange to us, as a political system, because Plato
was essentially describing an autopoietic system inhabited by human beings in the
form of the city. So the first systems theory was at the same time the first known,
well articulated, development of an autopoietic theory. And the irony is that this
theory was projected on the human social relations, precisely the field denied as a
valid application of the theory by Verela. So the quandery that we find ourselves in
to day, in which autopoietic theory is haunted by the social dimension, is mirrored
in the first known Western example of the theories articulation.
Autopoietic Theory represents a Road not taken within our Western Tradition.
Philosophy ignored The Laws and the detailed description of the “second best city”
in preference for the enigmas of The Republic that was assumed to be the best city.
But as we look at The Republic it is clear that it is an inhabitable city for humans,
similar to the comic cities produced by Aristophanes in his comedies. It is a city
only fit for the Gods where there is no difference between the city and the
258
household. In fact The Republic was created by Plato only to show the effects of
taking the road of dualism, and to point back toward the non-dual alternative and
it’s efficacy. But the Western tradition missed the import of this lesson and
developed an extreme dualistic approach to everything. And so the city of The Laws
became a curiosity, which was strange and unfamiliar, and somehow
incomprehensible. But this first systems theory we now realize was an accurate
image of the autopoietic system projected on the human city.
We realize that The Laws represented an autopoietic systems theory because we

now have the theory of Maturana and Verela to compare it to, along with other
examples developed by others influenced by the Chilean biologists remarkable
work. That work establishes a different paradigm for understanding living and
cognitive systems. It was done in response to the baffling nature of certain behavior
of higher order dissipative, far from equalibrium, systems when looked at in the
light of the normal view of biology. Part of this is the failure of stimulus response
explanations of this kind of system. But inspite of this failure there is an aversion to
the positing of a special living substance (elan vital ala Bergson), so the question
became how do we theorize about a machine that cannot be understood by simple
stimulus response explanations. Out of this simple quandery grew a sophisticated
theory on a very different pattern than most other theories of the organism. What is
interesting is that there are many direct parallels between this biological theory and
the systematic view of the city Plato presents in The Laws.
Therefore, we do not see autopoietic theory as stemming from biology in recent

times only, but view it as a submerged thread that runs through our tradition, and
which surfaces occasionally. For instance, we can see signs of this thread in the
Monadology of Leibniz. But it is interesting that there are very few instances where
this thread can be seen to be fully manifested in our tradition, yet it appears to lurk
as an essential possibility, continually suppressed or ignored, behind all that does
manifest within our tradition. The paradoxes of the Animate Machine are
continually there behind the extreme mechanistic interpretations of phenomena
including organic phenomena. But teasing this strand out and finding clear
examples, say in the Phenomenology of the Mind by Hegel, is a very difficult
process. Yet ultimately Autopoietic theory must come to terms with its progenitors
within the Western Tradition, because it is continually haunted by them.
In this work we will not attempt to tease out these hidden threads of autopoiesis
within the tradition, but on the other hand we will not cling overly to the version of
259
the theory proposed most recently. Instead, we will attempt to show how Western
Ontology bears within it the hidden possibility of Autopoiesis and the paradoxes of
it’s extension to the social. We will do this by delving into the structure of Western
ontology, and attempting to understand that as a context for the arising of
autopoiesis as the rigorous definition of the nub of paradoxicality within the field of
science but against the background of Western meta-physics.
Note:
For more details on the interpretation of the second best city in Plato’s Laws as an
autopoietic systematic organization of a human city see The Fragmentation Of
Being And The Path Beyond The Void by Kent Palmer (Manuscript circa 1994).
This manuscript contains a commentary on the first six books of The Laws that
demonstrates the autopoietic nature of Plato’s first systems theory.
Lesson Two
4. First Approximation
What we need is a crude first approximation to autopoietic theory so we can

understand where we are heading as we develop our ontological view of
autopoiesis. In that crude first approximation we will consider autopoiesis as an
“existentialist biology” which is directed at the question as to whether organisms
are reducible to machines or not. The answer to the question that autopoiesis gives
is at first satisfying to the reductionist because it affirms that indeed organisms are
machines. But then when one looks closer and realizes what kind of machine the
answer becomes a bit more unsettling to the traditional theorist. In other words
Autopoiesis takes sides in the traditional debate as to whether organisms are “just”
machines or not. But it reinterprets the “just” in such a way that the theory itself
takes on the paradoxicality of the categorizational problems associated with this
dichotomy. It does this by claiming to create a different theoretical stance a lot like
existentialism. Existentialism attempted to reaffirm traditional metaphysics by
turning the system of metaphysics upside down. Where essence is normally
affirmed by either idealists or materialists as being prior to everything else, the
question has always been only what kind of essence, instead existentialism affirmed
that the existence of things was more primordial than their essences. This preserves
the traditional metaphysical structure but appears like a new philosophy.
260
Autopoietic theory does something similar in that instead of affirming the primary
nature of the essences of the species produced in the evolutionary process it
affirmed the status of the individual organism as being prior to the species in the
sense that it must exist in order for the species to evolve and develop its essence
diachronically. It is odd to think that biology had lost track of the actual individual
organisms in its study of plants and animals, but this is exactly what autopoietic
theory charged. In fact, it said that these organisms had some strange characteristics
when considered as individuals outside the panoply of the forces of evolution acting
across time to define the essence of the species to which the individual belonged.
This of course brings us directly to the heart of ontology, because what is ontology
if not the relation between the Being of essences and the existence of individuals?
So the question becomes immediately what is the nature of the essence and
existence of individuals and species. We can think of it this way. An individual
organism exists first and then develops its essence as a means of participating in the
species. Thus is born the distinction between structure and organization. Or we can
think of it this way. A species defines the essence of individuals which then only
exist to embody those constraints in individual existents. It is clear that the
traditional biological viewpoint is the latter. The major subject of study has always
been the species not the contribution of the individual that exists in order to make
the species possible. Thus autopoiesis fines us for the liberty it allows us to take.
What we desperately desire is to have organisms be only machines. But what it
takes in return is the fact that it imposes the existentialist view of biology that
concentrates on the individual existing organism instead of the abstract species.
Now the question arises what is the relation between these two propositions? To
understand this it is necessary to consider the alternative. The alternative is that
Bergson is right, there is an elan vital or life energy that is different from all other
energies that are normally considered by physics. The very thought of this makes
biologists blanch because they like all of us desperately want to be scientific by the
standard set in physics. If there is some special invisible energy in organisms then it
is very difficult to gain the dream of scientific ratification of the foundations of
biology by physics. But when autopoiesis gives us this gift of scientific validation
of our mechanistic view of organisms it takes away something equally valuable to
us. That is it takes away our view of the species being primary and the individual
being secondary. It points out that without the living viable individual there would
be no species. We can think of Dodos but without actual Dodos alive and kicking
the species is nothing. Thus autopoiesis considers what the individual contributes
261
beyond the species. In other words, normally our biology would just consider an
individual an example of a species, and nothing else. But autopoiesis considers that
the individual contributes something beyond the constraints of the essence of
species. Thus you see we can only have organisms as merely machines as long as
the individual existent organism contributes something beyond the species defined
by the essence. Autopoietic theory is about defining just what this something more
that allows the organisms to be merely a machine is. And that revolves around the
traditional question concerning the relation between essence and existence.
At this point we can begin to appreciate the paradoxical nature of autopoiesis. It

gives us something but also takes away something in order to be able to decide
finally that organisms are just machines. Now lets consider the opposite of
autopoiesis. That opposite would decide that an organism was more than a machine
and then we could forget the individual and continue to think of the individual as
merely an exemplar of the species. And this is exactly how biologists solved the
problem in many circles for a long time. They accepted that organisms were an
emergent level beyond what was merely given in physics and avoided reductionism.
But as physics was more and more successful with their reductionist program this
became harder and harder to sustain. So another group of biologists insisted that
organisms were completely reducible to physical phenomena. But then their
problem was to explain were the strange and different properties of living
organisms came from. In fact, it out of this group that autopoiesis sprang. They
accepted that organisms were just machines already but wanted to explain the
strange properties that did not reduce to mere physics. Maturana and Verela hit
upon the answer, i.e. biological existentialism. In other words, there is a residue left
over from the essence imposed by the species which explains the difference
between the physical properties and the emergent properties of the organism that is
prior to it being any particular species. It is in fact a brilliant theoretical move with
deep philosophical import.
One should notice that traditionally the Being of Essence and the Existence of the
individual was confused in Greek philosophy. It was the time when the Arabs
inherited the Greek tradition that the distinction was produced between the two
concepts. This happened primarily because the Arabic language had no term for
Being but did have a term for existence. This forced the Arab Aristotelian scholars
to make the fine distinction that was translated back into Latin to become the
distinction we have today. In fact until the existentialists no one thought to take
philosophical advantage of the distinction. Jaspers is probably the first to realize
262
how Existenz could open a new direction for philosophical exploration. He was also
the first to realize that by intentionally leaving a key term undefined in a
philosophical system it was possible to generate a surplus of meaning in that term.
So in his philosophy he intentionally left Existenz undefined and its meaning was
given totally by context. A similar ploy occurs in Autopoietic theory. Here instead
of leaving the existence of the individual undefined we confer upon it closure to the
external observer. In this way we gain the surplus necessary to explain the emergent
difference while at the same time remaining congruent with a reductionist program.
Hopefully it is becoming clear that the relation between existence and essence is
not easily pinned down. In fact, it is a major muddle that philosophy attempts to
address. When every one poses a difference between existence and essence one is
walking straight into philosophical territory whether one declares it or not. The
paradoxicality of the difference between the emergent surplus of biology over
physics is hidden in the paradoxicality of the relations of existence to essence. Of
course, if one accused Maturana and Verela of this sophistic ploy they would deny
it. But it is clear, when one considers the situation closely that there is really only
this one way out of the conundrum of reduction verses emergence. Maturana and
Verela were merely clever enough to think of this possibility of embracing
paradoxicality. In fact, where best to place the paradoxicality but in the organism
itself. Then it appears as if there is no paradoxicality anywhere, and if we do not
look at the object of investigation closely enough we will never discover where all
the paradoxicality of the distinction between organism and machine disappeared.
However, we must pay for this reductive freedom by having our view of the field of
biology turned upside down. Suddenly organisms are closed, external observers
stand in uncertain relations to their subjects of study, the attributes of life and
cognition become fused within the organism, the distinction between organization
and structure must be scrupulously maintained. Our real interest, in species moves
to the background, while enigmatic individuals take center stage.
This first approximation will allow us to keep straight what is at stake as we begin
to investigate the phenomena of the fragmentation of Being and explore the relation
between essence and existence. Essences have Being, but existence is somehow
about the limits of Being. Existence gives us visions of life that is nasty, short and
brutal. It brings to the fore the difference between necessity and suffiency. All in all
we can say that Being and it’s limits play a very significant role in our conception of
autopoietic theory. But what is Being anyway? Well it turns out that our conception
of Being has been radically transformed in this century, at least for those who do
263
not reduce everything to word games, and thus are doomed to endlessly play word
games without meaning (i.e. Analytic Philosophers).
Lesson Three
5. Sophist-ication
Our crude approximation of autopoietic theory as Existential Biology has given us

a beginning point for exploration that shows how ontology intersects with
autopoietic theory. In fact, we can if we were unkind attribute the whole theory to a
kind of sophism. In other words like the sophist described by Plato, the autopoietic
theorist has found a hole that he can go down, which has so many exists that he can
never be found. This is because every possible relation between essence and
existence in the Western philosophical tradition may be applied as a basis of
interpreting the Autopoietic Theory. There is in other words an inexhaustible supply
of interpretations of autopoiesis. We will not attempt to rehearse those here. But
instead we will attempt to understand what Being _IS_ by introducing some of the
insights of contemporary Continental philosophy and hopefully approach some
understanding of it’s relation to existence in the process.
Consider this. If organisms are just machines then there is something lacking, i.e.
an explanation of their emergent properties. But if they are more than machines then
we have created some non-reducible substance such as elan vital of Bergson which
is mystical and inexplicable. Thus if we answer that they are machines then we have
said too little and if we say that they are not machines then we are led to say too
much. Autopoiesis picks a point right between these extremes and says that the very
existence of the autonomous individual organism carries with it something that
allows the emergent properties to be explained by without appealing to the essences
of the species forged over time by evolution. But understanding how this may be so
means we have to invert the normal relations that exist between the individual and
the species in biology. So we get a paradigm shift which leads to fascinating
insights into the nature of organisms, but which also throws us back onto the old
unresolvable and enigmatic relation between essence and existence.
After all the distinction itself arose out of a clash of cultures. The Greeks were
Indo-europeans and had something called Being in their language, while the
Semitic Arabs had no such thing as Being in their language but instead had the
concept of existence. The Arabs latched onto the Aristotelian texts and became pre-
eminent interpreters of them. This caused them to distinguish finely between being
264
which they translated as Kun (to make) which is active and means more than
persistence AND existence (wujud) which was meant something different to them,
something more like concrete reality, or what the Buddhists call Thusness or
Suchness. Thus the Arabs had to invent a word for Being which is beyond concrete
existence in order to compare the Greek ontology to their own natural linguistic
interpretation of things in a world without Being. But when all this came back into
the Western Philosophical tradition after the dark ages it meant we introduced the
Arab concept of existence for which we had no precedent in our language. In other
words for the Arabs Kun (Being) is a made up technical term, while for us Indo-
europeans existence is a made up technical term. This means that the very quandary
and enigma of the relation between essence and existence comes from the clash of
cultures with very different ways of looking at things. In other words it is about as
deep a distinction as you can get which is not just a difference in terms but a whole
difference in the way we look at the world, with and without Being.
The whole question as to whether autopoietic theory is merely sophistry really rests
on what we take the difference between essence and existence to amount to in the
end. If essence and existence is not taken to be a significant distinction then
autopoietic theory collapses into a set of illusory distinctions. If we do take it to be
significant but cannot resolve what it means then autopoietic theory becomes an
unsolvable enigma. If we instead find a way to understand the relation between
essence and existence that reconciles the clash of worldviews then autopoietic
theory becomes meaningful and ultimately will allow us to understand things about
the nature of the world that remain incomprehensible. But in all this the
philosophical underpinnings of autopoiesis are crucial if we are to avoid sophistry.
6. Ontological Difference
So we now begin the climb up the staircase of the meta-levels of Being.

Fortunately it is not a long climb. But each step is very important to understand
thoroughly. So we start where Heidegger started by explaining the concept of
Ontological Difference. In other words in order to understand Being it is necessary
to understand the distinction between Being and beings. Being is an attribute of
everything that is different from the things themselves in each case. We can
understand this when we begin by interpreting Being as presencing. Under this
interpretation we see that presencing of something is different from the thing made
present. Presence is the basic determinate of Being. But Being may stand under
many different interpretations. But if we do not first distinguish Being from the
265
beings that participate in it then it is impossible to even begin to understand the

nature of Being.
7. Pure Presence
The first and most universal interpretation of Being is Pure Presence. This is the
interpretation that has been handed down within our tradition as the most
prominent. In other words when something is purely present with no absence
touching it then it is said to have Being. So for instance, St Augustine talks about
the infinitesimal moment of the present and says that only that which exists in the
present has Being. This means pure presence is like a snap shot that is frozen
because it takes a picture of the infinitesimal moment. This basic idea has stood
unchallenged (for the most part) in our tradition up until this century.
It is important to understand pure presence because that is the realm in which

scientific theorizing mostly takes place. The theorist attempts to arrange all the facts
into a single snap shot that can be used to explain whatever phenomenon he is
studying. He assumes that the whole theory is available for mental manipulation at
once. He assumes the role of a transcendental subject toward a fully available
transcendental object and figures that the coherences between the two are made
possible by God. Or at least that is how the story goes in the Kantian model.
Different philosophical systems construe the pure availability of what is purely
present differently. But science as a whole is firmly rooted in this kind of Being and
does not question that in the least.
8. A new kind of Being arises
This picture of a world with only one kind of Being began to dissolve soon after the
turn of the century with the work of Husserl and Peirce. Husserl for the first time
decided to look at what actually went on in consciousness when we thought about
geometry or logic. He developed a method and terminological apparatus based on
Transcendental Idealism of Kant and began exploring his own consciousness and
what actually occurred as he thought. He found that the phenomenological
consciousness was a pretty strange place, but what was most interesting of all he
found functions of consciousness that went beyond the workings of induction and
deduction. He called this new function eidetic intuition (i.e. essence intuition). He
noticed that it was possible, and in fact common to grasp essences directly instead
of building them up through the use of induction and deduction. This phenomena
had not been noted before and showed a way to solve some of the age old
266
philosophical conundrums because essence perception pointed toward the existence

of a new mode of Being within consciousness that allowed it to grasp the world in a
way that was not just logical.
Peirce discovered something similar when he isolated abduction as a mode of

reasoning that produces hypotheses and also discovered the strata of Signs that
existed beneath the surface of formalisms. But the insights of Perice were not
developed because he did not gain tenure as a professor and influence students as
Husserl did. Out of Husserl’s teaching work came the school of phenomenology
and as his ideas spread engendered the movement of existentialism. In other words
there were some, like Sartre who saw this new mode of Being as existence. But
others within the school stuck to the basic phenomenological line that saw this new
philosophical disciple as the study of essences.
It was Heidegger that first used the new mode of Consciousness as the basis of a
philosophy. He sharply distinguished between the present-at-hand and ready-to-
hand modes of Being-in-the-world in his book Being And Time. He took the
argument out of the realm of consciousness and firmly placed it where it belonged
in the realm of ontology. He in effect showed that this new kind of Being was very
old, and in fact could be found in the Greek texts under the gloss of Aleithia
(Uncovering), which was the Greek concept of Truth.
And it was realized that the new kind of Being related to Heraclitus’ view of the
world as continuous flow as opposed to the view of Parmenides that was taken up
by Plato and Aristotle that the world was a static plenum. Thus we can call the new
kind of Being Process Being, as it means that everything in the world is a process
of unfolding. As we look back on the history of philosophy we can now see that
many times philosophers attempted to point toward this realm of unfolding, as
Hegel did, with his dialectics. but the problem was that all the theories that
indicated it were couched in the mode of pure presence, so that the indications did
not capture the actual phenomena of continuous unfolding.
Here we will use the idea of the temporal gestalt as a means of understanding
Process Being. A tree starts as a seed and grows to its full height, if all goes well,
and then eventually declines and dies. The whole gestalt of the process of that
unfolding is its Process Being. Snapshots of each moment of growth show it as it is
purely present in that moment. Thus we can take this series of snap shots and make
a film, but the film does not do justice to the whole of the temporal gestalt that lies
267
behind the film. The film is an illusory continuity that we produce out of purely
present moments. But beneath the illusory continuity there is the actual organization
of the phenomena in time based on its genesis.
Merleau-Ponty in The Phenomenology Of Perception attempted to translate

Heidegger’s ontological argument into psychological terms and found that pure-
presence or the present-at-hand correlates with pointing and process being or the
ready-to-hand correlates with grasping. Already Heidegger had pointed out that our
technological infrastructure has the kind of Being called Ready-to- hand. We do not
notice it until it breaks down. Take the example of writing with a pencil. As we
write we do not notice the pencil (or keyboard) but our mind is on the ideas (illusory
continuities) that we want to convey in our writing. But when the pencil breaks
(computer crashes) then out attention is brought back abruptly to the technological
infrastructure of our projects within the world.
Thus Husserl (and perhaps Peirce) ushered in a new era in philosophy by the
discovery of a different mode of consciousness through their phenomenological
methods. Heidegger and then Merleau-Ponty expanded upon this hard won ground
by creating philosophies and psychological interpretations of the new ways of
being-in-the-world. But of course besides giving us new realms to explore in
philosophy, this expanded our view of the world and how it works, and also opened
up the possibility that Being had several or perhaps infinite different modes. So the
gold rush was on attempting to find and define these new modes philosophically. It
turned out in retrospect that this unfolding of the different modes of Being occurred
like a symmetry breaking, so that each new mode was at a higher meta-level than
the last, and the series of symmetry breakings was not infinite but ceased after the
fourth because it hit a fundamental human limitation to think beyond the fourth
meta-level.
9. Biology and Physics in a new world.
Biological processes are all temporal gestalts. Therefore you would think that
biologists would embrace the new kind of Being immediately and begin to weave it
into their theories as the means by which the difference between biology and
physics may be understood. Physics in the Newtonian era gave us the model that
defined the universe and its constituents as purely present particles that developed
under the equations of the dynamical laws. Thermodynamics because it was messy
was pushed to the background. But what we find is that even though Physics has
268
moved on to the quantum era that has realized its own version of the temporal
gestalts underlying phenomena, biologists are still trying to conform to an old
version of science rooted in pure presence. So we do not see many theories in
biology that present biological processes as rooted in process being. In fact most of
the progress in this regard has been had in Physics where quantum processes have
caused physicists to rethink the Newtonian models based on pure presence radically
in order to have any comprehension of what is going on at the quantum micro-level.
In fact, Whitehead’s Process In Reality was the first major step in the direction of a
purely process oriented philosophy. Unfortunately, this philosophy was embodied
in a formulation that was purely present and so it undercut itself. But we find that
physics has given rise to the work of several formulations that understand things in
terms of processes at a fundamental level, and so biology is left in a position where
it needs to catch up. The rise of autopoietic theory is a step in that direction. It
imagines the creature in fundamentally different terms where the process of living
and the process of evolution intersect somehow.
However, are we to follow Sartre and understand the new mode of Being as an
embodiment of existence. If we were we could imagine the Biological
Existentialism of Autopoiesis as being directly related to the Existentialism of
Sartre. But the problem with this is that once we discovered a new modality of
Being-in-the-world, the door was opened to finding more, which is exactly what
happened. Identifying the new mode of Being with existence slams that door on
further kinds of Being. Instead we must wait for the door to close itself. Then that is
where we are likely to find the basis of existence as opposed to essence. As it was
Husserl identified the new modality with essences, and so Sartre was merely
reversing Husserl applying Hegel’s viewpoint. But as we see from later
developments both of these views are wrong. As we move up the meta-levels of
Being our views of essence and existence change. At each level the pair take on a
new relationship. For instance, until we discovered process being essences were
static constraints on the individual thing that made it what it was. But once we
discover that the genesis of the thing in its temporal gestalt is important then we see
that the essence is no longer static. Now we have to speak of the thing essencing
forth as it unfolds into existence. The unfolding of the essence makes it necessary to
see the existent thing as dynamic as well. Instead we are forced to look at it as an
eventity which exists simultaneously in space and time and is dynamic. So at the
level of Process Being we find that we have eventities essencing forth as they
unfold and then fade from existence. When we apply this to biology we see that the
species is not just the culmination of the development of the creature but is also a
269
conferring of a whole genetic process from birth till death of a creature that lives in
four dimensional spacetime.
Lesson Four
10. Dynamism
One might say that we knew the world was dynamic all along, so what is the big
discovery that Husserl and his school made that we did not all ready know? Trying
to make that clear we might look at the difference between a film and a growing
thing. In a film we see dynamism. But that dynamism is made up of separate slides
that are frozen pictures of the dynamic thing. If that thing is a tree growing then we
contrast the tree itself and its genetic development with the succession of frozen
slides that capture the externality of its dynamic. Similarly philosophy always
before produced frozen abstracted snapshots called ideas and projected them on an
illusory continuity in order to represent the world. What Husserl managed to see
through his rigorous introspection technique was that this was only one way we
construed the world, there was actually another completely different way we
construe the world which is inherently dynamic. This inherent dynamism may be
used just like the series of frozen snapshots flashed on the screen in rapid
succession to imitate the world. We use it when ever we look at the whole temporal
gestalt of something from its arising to its passing away. The moment of completion
when it reaches the height of its development is only a moment which the snapshots
attempt to hold onto. One of the best examples of this way of looking at things is the
studies of Piaget [cf Structuralism] who really tried to find out how children
reasoned, or experienced time, or thought of the world. He found that it was very
different from adults and that they were definitely not little adults. This line of
investigation has revealed many interesting things about development and its
relation to behavior and the child’s construction of its world. In this view the
essence of the human changes as it goes through various stages of its development.
This essencing was never really noticed before. In Husserl the essencing was seen
as the process of the grasping of the essence of things which was independent of
induction and deduction. As Husserl says if you never saw a Lion before and did
not know what it was and one jumped out at you, you would immediately perceive
the essence of “lion-ness”. This ability to grasp what a lions essence is despite never
seeing one before nor having the abstraction to work from is a faculty that is
different from the reasoning between known individuals and known abstractions.
Peirce called it abduction.
270
Peirce made a fundamental contribution when he connected the abduction that

gives us hypotheses with sign making. He invented thereby the discipline of
semiotics. Saussure was the co-founder of this discipline. It is a discipline that is
made possible by the understanding of the process that underlies all formalisms. In
fact, we can see from the point of view of semiotics that all forms are made up
entirely of signs. The signs appear as diacritical marks. These marks show us the
difference in repetitions of individuals of the same kind. The changes of the forms
through discontinuous transformations may be explained by structuralist semi-
formalisms. These kinds of formalisms have become prevalent within the Western
tradition. A good example of such formalism appears in the General Systems
Problem Solver of George Klir as appears in Architecture Of Systems Problem
Solving. In such a formal-structural system the discontinuous changes in forms are
understood by creating a micro-formalism of content (signs) which manages the
transformation from one form to the other. Thus we see that sturcturalism and
semiotics are closely related and are dependent on the positing of the Process Being
meta-level. Structuralism studies the meta-constraints on the evolution of essences.
Semiotics looks at the pointing that occurs at the level of pure presence which
cannot be seen until the level of process being has been revealed. Signs indicate.
The fundamental psychological motif of the present-at-hand is indication. But until
the Process Being level has been identified all we see is the forms on the
background of illusory continuity. What we do not realize is that those forms are
composed of a content of signs, or indicators. The flow of the signs, and the
discontinuous transformation of the forms only appears when the process substrata
is identified. By the identification of the process substrata it became clear that we
could talk about the transformation of essences through time and the embedding of
eventities in timespace without resorting to frozen forms and illusory continuities
that repressed the natural flowing and transforming of things.
11. Next Step Up -- Segmentation
Once it was clearly seen that there was a natural flow beneath the filmstrip
produced by ideation, the next step was to realize that this flow was segmented. The
realization that this segmentation indicated another kind of Being was not as
straight forward. In our tradition we are used to moving back and forth between
nouns and verbs. We have in our language words like Pattern, Form, Shape, Trace
which can be used as either nouns or verbs. So the realization of a verbal substrata
to the formalized nouns was not a big step. Within our history there were always
philosophers such as Heraclitus and Hegel that pointed back toward the undertow of
271
action beneath the facade of stable forms. But stepping beyond this to the next
meta-level of Being was a difficult and tortuous advance. Now we can look back
and see that it is clear that if you divide your approach to things into nouns and
verbs that the next meta-level up must look at the site of the discontinuous
distinction between them. Thus it is clear now that the discontinuity between Verb
and Noun is itself “no-thing” that must have a different ontological basis from the
things that it divides. In the provision of an ontological basis for this discontinuity
and those that appear in the flowing stream of transformations of essences that show
up as segmentations arises what is now called Hyper Being.
The way that ontologists approached Hyper Being had more circumlocutions. What
occurred is that Sartre posited Nothingness as the opposite of Process Being and
reasoning from Hegel posited the association of Process Being with the existent.
Thus ensued a fight over what existentialism meant. Heidegger disclaimed any
relation to the existentialism of Sartre. For him existence could be traced back to
ex-stasis or ecstasy of the projection of the world by Dasein. In other words
existence was just a moment in the cycle of the self projection of Being by humans
reduced to their ontological roots. Sartre on the other hand used the more traditional
understanding of existence as other than Being. This allowed him to posit that there
was an opposite to Process Being in existence which was called nothingness. This
reproduced the split between physus and logos that is a traditional dualism. By
devaluing existence Heidegger was attempting to do away with this split in his
philosophy just as he had also done away with the spit between subject and object.
However, the split between logos and physus was more difficult to discard. Sartre’s
brilliant move was to place Nothingness at the center of consciousness while
Process Being was given external reality. This meant that existence and essence
intertransformed producing a closed loop like a Klienian Bottle. Existence appeared
at the center of consciousness (logos) and essencing at the center of the what there
is externally (physus).
It was quickly realized that Process Being and Nothingness were antinomic
opposites and so they canceled. This cancellation was called by Heidegger -B-e-i-n-
g- (crossed out) [pretend the lines go through the letters]. By writing under erasure
then cancellation of Process Being and Nothingness was indicated. This went hand
in had with Michael Henry’s critique of Heidegger in The Essence Of Manifestation
in which the underlying assumption of his philosophy was called Ontological
Monism. That is the idea that Being as a process Grounds itself as a Formal
Residue. In other words the Verbal nature of things grounds the Noun-like nature of
272
things. To counter this basic assumption Henry pointed out that there must be
something that does not ever appear which he called the Essence of Manifestation.
This was the ontological equivalent to the Unconscious of Freud, Jung, Adler, and
others. It was a moment of the process of manifestation that never appeared but
effected everything that did appear. One could only see it through circumspection in
the distortions and displacements of what did appear. Derrida capitalized on the
definition of Hyper Being and called it DifferAnce which he defined as differing
and deferring. One could think of it this way. There is not just a verb and a noun but
also an anti-verb. The verb relates to logos and the anti-verb relates to physus.
These two cancel producing the discontinuity “|” between the noun|verb. But the
very existence of an anti-verb signals the existence of something prior to both the
verb and the anti-verb. That “something” never actually appears in the showing and
hiding relationships of presencing that underlies what is made present. That
“something” Henry calls the essence! And so we find that suddenly the term
essence has a different meaning. It is something that is always hidden behind the
scenes controlling the unfolding of the essencing of eventities and segmenting that
flow.
Another way to look at this is through the theory proposed in physics by David
Boehm who talks about the implicate order. The implicate order is an underlying
order that never appears but that controls the ordering of what does appear. It is
based on this theory that Boehm proposed the concept of hidden variables to
explain quantum phenomena. If we think of the forms as figures on a ground that
appears as a gestalt then the implicate order must be a kind of proto-gestalt which
lies behind the apparent ordering but which occasionally shows through by
changing that apparent ordering. Similarly the essence behind manifestation
controls the discontinuities that fragment the essencing of evenities in the flows of
development. It appears just as the human psychological unconscious as something
behind the scenes that orders things on a basis we do not understand, that we never
see but whose presence we cannot deny as it appears everywhere.
Derrida’s early philosophy is an exploration of this Hyper Being level. The name
actually comes from Merleau Ponty in The Visible And The Invisible who
summarized the development of Western Continental ontology that led to the
positing of this third meta-level of Being. Derrida talks about writing under erasure,
and talks about writing crossed out, and generally realizes that within our tradition
this kind of Being has been symbolized from the beginning by writing as opposed to
the flow of speech. He characterizes our tradition as Logocentric and as one that has
273
denied and suppressed writing since Plato in spite of the fact that the tradition itself
needs writing to be passed down. Derrida points to the substrata of the sign as being
made up of traces. He posits that just as the content of forms are signs so to the
content of the sign is traces. A trace is an indention or impression left upon the
writing surface by the writing instrument. If you write with a pencil on a tablet and
then tear off the top sheet of the tablet and then shade in the surface with the side of
the pencil then one sees the trace. This level of traces beneath the sign is very
significant and it’s isolation is a major achievement. It allows us a fundamentally
different view of our cultural heritage. This is why deconstuction has been so
popular in spite of its degeneration into nihilism. Derrida calls the study of traces
Gramatology. These are the distortions and deferrals that are left by the process of
writing that underlies the process of speech that in turn underlies the illusory
continuities that support forms. With each meta-level of Being that opens out we
are exploring the substrata of ideation and out projection and construction of the
world.
In my series of papers on Software Engineering Foundations I show that software

is one of the few objects that exists almost wholly at the level of traces and thus is a
cultural artifact that embodies Hyper Being. I posit that software represents a meta-
technology as it ties together and integrates other technological systems. And I look
at the points in Fandozi’s Nihilism And Technology and contrast the attributes of a
meta-technology with those of a technology. Once we realize that software
embodies almost all the attributes of Hyper Being traces then it is possible to see its
profound effects on our culture as software becomes more prevalent. The
characteristics of software are that it is a kind of writing that is animated. The type
of process of animated writing is very different from the kind of process that
governs speech. Speech is the ultimate embodiment of essencing forth of the
eventity. In other words in speech grammar controls transformations of words
(forms) according to a fixed grammar. The words depend on their context for their
meaning. Thus as sentences put the words in different contexts their essence
continually changes. But when we get to the next meta-level we realize that the
grammar and the words are themselves emerging within the conversational process
and are not themselves fixed. The process by which the grammar and words emerge
are different from the process by which words change their essential meaning
within speech. These two processes identified by Derrida with speech and writing
form the warp and woof upon which all cultural objects are formed. So we can look
at anything and see the traces and signs of these two processes at work beneath the
surface of the illusory continuity and the forms that float upon that surface.
274
12. Back to Biology
In Biology we have the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution. It has become

clear that species appear in spurts and that evolution is not a smooth continuous
process by which the essences of species are forged but instead a fragmented
process that is difficult to understand. But in order to try to understand it we must
look at the traces in the form of fossils of long gone species. What is strange is that
there seems to be a regularity in the renewal of the species over the vast periods of
evolutionary development. Some have tried to say that this occurs like the death of
the Dinosaurs by the destructive appearance of comets and some have gone so far as
to posit that there is a dwarf star that intersects with the Ort cloud to free these
comets causing the landfall and subsequent destruction of all manner of forms of
life, and thus giving others a chance in the next period of evolution. But no such
twin Sun has been found. But the concept of Nemesis is a precise analog to the
Essence of Manifestation. There is something that is causing the periods of
destruction of species and their regeneration which is hidden and never seen like the
Essence of Manifestation. If it is not a twin sun then it is some other phenomena
that lurks behind the scenes and causes manifestation to be segmented and creating
the traces left in the fossil record. This seems to have little to do with the organism
itself except when the die off occurs. We see the effects in the traces in the fossil
record not in the species except by the fact that this species is present and the others
have become extinct.
But similar segmentation occurs in the development of the organism. The organism
during it’s development goes through a series of stages that gives us the phrase
“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words the actual development of the
species does leave its imprint on the developing embryo in the series of stages it
goes through as it develops. These traces of the earlier stages of the development of
life appear as discontinuous steps or stages. The stages itself are controlled by the
DNA strand that exists in every cell. Those DNA strands act like software
controlling the development process. They are written trances that produce
discontinuous changes in the flow of development. The life processes of the
organism by which it maintains its viability are like level of Process Being, but
Hyper Being is instead like the discontinuous changes of the essence of the
organism in the process of development. The forms of the animals stuffed on the
walls of natural history museums capture the frozen likeness. When we place them
in Zoos then we have the living process instead of a frozen likeness. When we
create habitats in which the animals are free to roam and interact with other animals
275
such as at the wild animal parks then we begin to see the behavior similar to those
of wild animals. Animals that are in such habitats mate on the basis of the traces
that they naturally produce rather than on the basis of being caged together. The
only thing better than that is if we observe and study the animals in their actual
habitat after we have controlled ourselves and resisted destroying it. So the stages
by which Zoos have developed back toward the direct encounter with the wild are
similar to the stages of the unfolding of the meta-levels of Being. That stage has a
point where we allow the animals enough room to produce their natural traces and
roam landscapes the size of their natural territories. This stage allows the natural
discontinuities in the herds of animals behavior to appear. This is similar to the
discontinuities in the development of the organism as it recapitulates evolution, and
it is also similar to the discontinuities that appear in evolution itself.
The basis of Hyper Being is the discontinuities that pattern the flows. These
discontinuities have a different kind of Being than the flows themselves. Derrida
has gone the furthest in the direction of defining this level of culture though his
psychotherapy of philosophy. But others have also explored it like Martin
Heidegger, Michael Henry, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty. From
those pioneers many other cultural analyses based on the level of traces have
emerged. In fact, most of post-modern deconstructionist analysis attempts to
elucidate this level of cultural artifacts. Once this level has been exposed then
essence and existence takes on yet another meaning. Essence becomes the hidden,
never appearing enigma that distorts what does appear. Existence becomes the trace
itself rather than the signs and forms that are built up from the trace. Also we find
that we no longer think of the essencing of the eventity but instead our attention is
drawn to the epochs within which the patterning of the essence remains fairly
constant in its essencing. Then out of the discontinuities between these essences
there is the sudden appearance of the emergent eventity that changes everything. I
call this sudden appearance of the emergent eventity out of the discontinuity
between epochs the novum. Now we see how the arising of the novum creates the
epochs in terms of the phenomena of emergence, the arising of the genuinely new
that transforms the tradition. This subject was first adequately framed by G.H.
Mead who describes the phenomena of emergence and relates it to the social.
Lesson Five
13. The final step
You may have noticed that each step gets harder to think about as we scale the
276
ladder of ontological meta-levels. And one might even wonder if it is possible to go

any higher. In fact, it was Merleau-Ponty that first reasoned that after Nothingness
and Process Being cancel each other out by annihilation of these antinomies into
Hyper-Being that there must be something else beyond the cancellation. He called
this possibility Wild Being, as he was influenced by the work of Levi Strauss’ The
Savage MinD. What he was referring to was something similar to what the
American philosopher Ballard more recently called the ‘archaic’. In other words,
there must be a ‘primitive’ or ‘archaic’ state prior to or more primordial than the
antinomies that cancel, because the self-destruction of the ideational antinomies do
not destroy the world. There is still the perceptual world that continues to function
beneath the self-destructing ideational canopy. Merleau-Ponty in The Visible And
The Invisible called this ‘Flesh.’ And he was the first to explore the strange
characteristics of this highest meta-level of Being. He pointed out that the major
attribute of this level is that what appears as dualisms in the ideational canopy that
exists before cancellation within Wild Being appear as chiasms or nexus of
reversibility. A chiasm is a point where dualities join and become one, like the
chiasm of the nerves of the eye that meld and then split to go to each side of the
brain. The chiasms of dualities give us our first hint of the existence of non-duality
beneath all the manifest dualities of our culture.
One way to understand the chiasms is to look at the interval that is fundamental to
relativity theory. In relativity theory multiple observers depending on their inertial
frames will see different proportions of space and time within an spatiotemporal
interval. Relativity theory give us an absolute means of translating between these
different inertial viewpoints. So in the interval there can be different proportions of
the space and time phases with a reversibility between those phases that can appear
differently to different observers in different inertial frames. This is an excellent
picture of what is meant by the chiasm. The dualities that appear in the ideational
canopy above the point of antinomic collapse are the limits of the interval. Those
limits encapsulate phases associated with each of the limit dualites and between
those phases there is a point of reversibility that can appear different depending on
one’s point of view. The flesh is the pair of phases and nexus of reversibility. Just
prior to collapse into complete non-duality there is this chiasmic point where the
difference between the dualities begins to separate but have not yet gained the
necessary escape velocity to tear apart. It is this thin space between the collapse of
the antinomic opposites and the arrival at complete non-duality that Wild Being
directs our attention toward.
277
Wild Being is as strange to us of the Western Tradition as Quantum Mechanics and

Relativity were to those who inhabited the Newtonian world. We are so used to
thinking in terms of dualities that it is almost impossible for us to think of the
chiasmic fusion of dualities just prior to their entry into complete non-duality.
When we speak of complete non-duality we have in mind what David Loy calls
Nonduality in his book on the relation between Asian philosophies and Western
philosophies. Non-dual states of thought, perception, and action are the ground
from which Asian religion and philosophy begins. In the Western Tradition we have
done our best to ignore and repudiate these non-dual states, except in some forms of
mysticism which we subsequently devalued. Therefore we do not have the tools in
our culture to talk about these non-dual states that have been so important to other
cultures. Thus when the meta-levels of Being lead us back toward this common
ground it is difficult think about the implications of the unthinkability of the fifth
meta-level of Being and it is even more difficult in some ways to think about the
partial non-duality of Wild Being (the fourth meta-level of Being).
However, recently there have been some attempts to enter this arena and construct
a philosophical system at this level. The most famous of these is the Nihilistic
philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari expressed in Anti-oedipus and A Thousand
Plateaus. That book solves one of the fundamental problems standing in the way of
anyone philosophizing at the level of Wild Being. The problem is that all
antinomies cancel, and it is difficult to talk when all of your concepts have canceled
out. Deleuze and Guattari solve this problems by picking two disciplines they do
not care about like Marxist Economics and Psychoanalysis and allow these two
antinomic disciplines cancel leaving them the realm of philosophy in which to
continue to attempt to talk non-dually. Their way of signifying this non-duality is
by identifying man with the machine. In this way they make the same choice of
reduction of the organism to the machine as autopoietic theory. They go on to deny
the reality of the individual. The individual is reduced to sub-individual level called
desiring machines which appear in the field of the social. One of the great advances
of this theory is the realization that any truly unconscious material must in fact be
orthogonal within consciousness. In other words if material within consciousness
has any relations to each other then it cannot have come from the unconscious.
Desiring machines are seen as manifestations directly from the unconscious that
arises in consciousness. Since they have no relation to each other it is impossible to
ask what they mean in relation to each other. Thus one is reduced to asking only
how they work together. Thus desiring machines are very similar to the nodes of the
autopoietic system. Desiring machines form a network called a rhizome by Deleuze
278
and Guattari. The network exists in the social field called the socius. The unity of
the individual is an illusion. The individual is an artificial boundary set up within
the social field by cultural convention. Deleuze and Guattari propose that the
ground state of culture is schizophrenia. They call their discipline schizoanalysis
because it attempts to look at the tremendous variety that is produced as desiring
machines well up within the field of the socius which has an underlying
schizophrenic character. Society attempts suppress this this schizoprenic welling up
of variety that underlies all social forms. Part of that suppression is the social
construction of the individual as the locus of repression. In Anti-oedipuS the history
of this repression is given in the arising of three eras in the development of the
dominate western culture. These are called the savage, barbaric, and capitalistic
phases. These phases represent the movement through the other meta-levels of
Being. For instance in the savage era there is writing on the body as a means of
social domination. This represents the movement through the third meta-level of
Being where writing of traces dominate. Then in the Barbaric era tyrants set them
selves up as the center of society. The social body becomes the same as the body of
the tyrant. In this era there is a domination of the flows of resources in the name of
the tyrant. Here we get a parody of the name of the Father from Lacan. But the
emphasis is on the control of flows of processes which indicate a connection to
Process Being. Finally we get the creation of capitalism that reorganizes the flows
controlled centrally in the Barbaric era so that everything is coded and reinscribed
in terms of the values projected by Capitalism. This recording of everything is the
sign of the entry into Pure Presence. In that first meta-level the sign of the thing
substitutes for the thing. Instead of real wealth we have only signs of wealth which
are manipulated and reconfigured by the capitalist system. Deleuze and Guattari do
not talk about what comes before the Savage. But what is prior to the savage is the
idyllic form of pure upwelling, pure schizophrenia. This is their image of Wild
Being where the desiring machines appear upon the body-without-organs and
organize themselves according the the field of the socius without being controlled
by the writing of Savage society. This vision is very similar to the self-organization
of the autopoietic system, but is much more vibrant a vision than that of autopoietic
theory because it has tremendous social and psychological implications that
autopoietic theory lacks. However, the nihilism of the theory of Deleuze and
Guattari is almost overwhelming. By discarding the what and focusing only on the
level of “how they work” Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy becomes utterly
nihilistic. In other words anything that works is ok, values mean nothing.
A less nihilistic philosophy posed at the level of Wild Being is that of John S. Hans
279
in the Play Of The World. He begins with the viewpoint of Deleuze and Guattari
but concentrates on Play as a non-dual activity prior to all other activities and
introduces values via aesthetics. This book is an excellent example of what a non-
dual philosophy posed at the fourth meta-level of being might be like. Another
completely different attempt to build a philosophy at this level appears in the work
of Arkady Plotnitsky. His books Complementarity, In The Shadow Of Hegel, and
Reconfigurations take a completely different tact which builds upon the work of the
physicist Bohr as well as Derrida and Bataille. But he cites Deleuze and Guattari
and shows the weakness of their attempt to build a philosophy of Wild Being. His
attempt is much stronger as it begins to redress the dualism inscribed in our
tradition between Logos and Physus by building a philosophy based on
complementarities such as those found in quantum physics and relativity theory.
These philosophies posed at the fourth meta-level of Being are very important to us
since they attempt in various ways to think what is almost unthinkable. The
difficulty of posing a philosophy at this level is extreme, because all our normal
conceptual tools are disarmed, and because such a philosophy goes against the
predominate dualistic trends in our culture. However, it is very valuable to have
examples of such philosophies because it is precisely at this level that we need to
think if we are going to have any deep ontology of phenomena such as that we try to
describe in autopoietic theory. At this level we discover that there is something
beyond the essencing and the eventity. At the last level our attention was turned to a
particular kind of essencing forth of the evenity called emergence of the novum that
produces the epochs within our tradition. Now at this level we discover the integra
beyond the essence and we discover the holon which is simultaneously whole and
part between the extremes of the epoch and the eventity. The essence is a series of
constraints upon noematic nucli (the appearing things) which make them the same
despite the changes that occur with different viewpoints on them. But by
establishing the kinds of things we tend to overlook individual differences. The
integra is the inner coherence of the individual thing within the constraints laid
down by the essence that establishes kind. The holonic nature of the thing is a
chiasm between the view of the thing from the outside as evenity and from the
inside as epoch. We can think of the holon as establishing the chiasm between
inside and outside and the integra as establishing the reversibility between different
viewpoints on the same thing. These two approaches toward the thing together
establish the ‘flesh,’ or ‘play,’ or ‘schizoid,’ or the ‘interactive heterogeneity and
heterogeneous interactivity’ by which the various philosophies of Wild Being
describe the world.
280
At this fourth meta-level of Being essence and existence again transmute. The
essence becomes the integra of the holon as we go beyond outer coherences that
indicate kindness to the inner coherences of the individual. The existent becomes
the holon that has integrity. In other words essence goes beyond the kindness to
discover the thing within the constraints of kindness. And the thing that is existent
with its inward and outward horizons becomes the balance between these horizons
as the holon that has integrity. So at this level it is difficult to tell existence from
essence because they become chiasmic like all other dualisms. It is precisely at this
level that we must pose our autopoietic theory for it to have what Plotnitsky calls
‘efficacity’ (the peculiar kind of efficacy that appears at the level of Wild Being). It
is at this level we realize what the melding of the cognitive and the living that is
implicit in autopoietic theory must mean. From the outside the autopoietic unity is
seen by observers from various viewpoints. They cannot tell what is happening with
the operationally closed autopoietic system because the different viewpoints view
the reversibility of the phases within the autopoietic system as having different
strengths. Therefore the autopoietic system cannot be understood by an outside
observer, and at the same time we cannot separate the living nature of the system
from its inherent intelligence. Life and cognition becomes fused within the closed
autopoietic system. This fusion is the non-duality of the reversible phases of life
and cognition. The autopoietic system is a holon which is balanced between its
closed inward and its open outward horizon. The autopoietic system is an individual
organism with its own particular homeostatic balance which is integral to it. This
integrity that gives viability to the autopoietic system is specific to the individual
organism and goes beyond the constraints set up by the species and its evolution.
But merely characterizing the autopoietic system at the level of Wild Being is not
enough. It is necessary to realize that the autopoietic system functions within the
whole context of the kinds of Being, not just at one level. But it draws its ability to
transcend paradoxes that arise a the level of theoretical ideation from this highest
level of Being. In order to understand the ontological foundations of autopoietic
theory it is not enough to merely peg it to a particular meta-level of Being but we
must more generally understand how posing the theory at that level functions in
relation to all the other meta-levels, especially the fifth meta-level that points
toward the emptiness of all things.
Lesson Six
14. Breakup of the Monolith
281
Now we have the full set of kinds of Being in view, it is time to turn to some more
basic questions in order to put them in perspective.
The fundamental assertion that we are making here is that anything that has any
deep significance must be thought about in terms of all four of the different kinds of
Being. We are postulating that Autopoiesis has deep significance because it is a
description of the essence of life by indicating what life gets from the structures that
assure it’s viability. Thus we need to look at it in the context of all four different
kinds of Being. And when we do so we find that Autopoietic Theory is transformed
by that context. Here we wish to trace some aspects of that transformation that takes
us well beyond what is normally thought about in terms of autopoietic theory. In
other words autopoietic theorists normally take as given the present-at-hand
formulation theories that all science strives for and never question the process of
ideation that lies behind those representations. By questioning that ground and
placing it in a broader philosophical context we are going deeply into the horizon of
possible significance of autopoiesis.
This deepening of context is particularly relevant to autopoiesis because it is about

the self-production of living beings. But that makes us wonder about the self-
production of the ideational process that produces the theories that we expose about
living beings. In a sense autopoiesis always implicitly calls for it’s theory to
understand the grounds of the production of the theory itself. In fact, we find
ourselves enacting the process of theorizing autopoietic phenomena. The nub of
paradox that is autopoietic theory has the same characteristics of the autopoietic
system itself. That is to say an external theorist cannot understand the outcome of
an autopoietic theorists thoughts about phenomena, because it does not fit into the
traditional cause and effect framework. The autopoietic theorist somehow becomes
fused with his theory within the magical circle around the paradoxicality. The
autopoietic theorist has entered this circle and has taken up a different relation to his
theory than the normal theorist. This is like the fusion of the living and the cognitive
within the autopoietic system. The fact that the traditional theorist cannot
understand the results of the autopoietic theorizing is like the closure of the
autopoietic system to the external observer. This essential change of status of the
autopoietic theorist stems from the fact that autopoietic theorizing is essentially
rooted in Process Being not in the pretense of stasis of normal Theory that seeks to
produce knowledge relationships that will not change. Instead autopoietic theory is
a lot like the other humanistic disciplines developed in this century: namely
Phenomenology, Dialectics, Hermeneutics and Structuralism.
282
Each of these disciplines that have been developed by the Humanities to attempt to
establish themselves as sciences introduce distance between the humanistic
observer of culture and his subject. But each of them are marked by an essential
process that is recognized to be an unending exploration of horizons rather than the
production of a fixed result. Phenomenology has the horizons of noema (endless
content of consciousness) and noesis (endless realms of significance of things
within consciousness) to explore. Hermeneutics has endless configurations of texts
to interpret. Dialectics has endless movements through contradiction to resolution
that occurs in History. Structuralism has endless cultural distinctions to dissect. But
the important difference with normal science is that as each of these disciplines
explore their respective territories they continually introduce changes that they
themselves must take into account so that the task is never-ending. Similarly
Autopoiesis has set itself an endless task of understanding how the existential
nature of organisms contributes to their essential viability. In that process the
autopoietic theorist gets lost in the endless process of unfolding the theory. A
theorist that assumes that theories must be static and lead to frozen results that stand
forever will never understand either the constructivist method nor the enactive
practice of autopoietic theory.
So we see in autopoietic theory an essential change in the process of theorizing.

And it is important to understand that to get the right perspective on this new
approach to things. It is like quantum mechanics or relativity theory in that it fuses
the theorist (observer) to the theorized about (observed) in some strange way. It is a
means of understanding the implications of this fusion in a field other than physics
for a change. We can understand this as an intersection of Pure Presence and
Process Being within the theory in a way similar to that posited by Heidegger in his
definition of Ontological Monism as a way of comprehending Being. Ontological
Monism says that Being is a closed system that produces and grounds itself. It
posits a closure of Being that has not need of God. Michael Henry breaks up this
picture of Heidegger’s by positing the possibility of Ontological Dualism which in
turn opens up the possibility of ontological Multiplicity. In Ontological Dualism
there is ‘some?ness’ beyond the the closure of Process Being and Pure Presence.
Think of this as being like the perturbations of the autopoietic system. The Essence
of Manifestation never shows itself (it is like the unconscious) except in the
distortions in what does appear. The difference between the autopoietic metaphor
and Ontological Monism is that in autopoiesis the perturbations or distortions come
form the outside environment but in Ontological Monism they come from ‘within’
manifestation itself, from an incomprehensible direction. We have a situation kind
283
of like that of the inhabitants of Abbott’s Flatland for whom the motions of higher
dimensional creatures is incomprehensible. Ontological Dualism that appears with
Hyper Being tells us that the Plenum of Being as static and the Flows of Being that
is dynamic are shot though and through with these discontinuities across
inexplicable transformations occur as if from another dimension. But with the
opening up of the possibility of a third dimension of Being there comes the
possibility of an even higher dimensions. So we could go on to posit Ontological
Multiplicity. What is interesting is that this step only brings us one further
dimension. It essentially fragments the plenum of Pure Presence and the Flow of
Process Being in Time into a shattered chaotic morass. There is nothing in
autopoietic theory as it stands that can be taken as a metaphor for this explosion.
We must in fact extend autopoietic theory into the reflexive social realm to have a
model of what is happening in this case. But it is clear that autopoiesis can be seen
as a metaphor for the relations between the differentiation of the first three kinds of
Being.
In order to understand this we must go back to Kant. Kant posited that

understanding must be a mixture of experience and reason and denied that reason
on its own was capable of knowledge. This was in contradistinction to the dogmatic
philosophers through out the history of philosophy up till then who claimed to know
things based on reason alone. But Kant showed that Reason always produces
Antinomies that cancel so that Reason alone leads only to annihilation of ideas.
Thus did Kant establish the fundamental limits of metaphysics. But metaphysics
always wanted to have its cake and eat it to. It always wanted to maintain the limits
established by Kant and yet also go beyond them. It was Husserl and his discovery
of Essence perception that showed finally how this was possible. Husserl showed
that there was an invisible substrate of process under the representations of
transcendental philosophy. In that way he substantiated Hegel’s claim that
dialectical interactions between the categories were more fundamental than the
frozen non-interacting categories that Kant posited. But Husserl did it from within
Transcendental Idealism instead of by turing it upside down as Hegel did. Husserl
found a process at the heart of ideation that made induction and deduction possible.
This was like discovering another dimension to the idealist world. Heidegger
quickly took advantage of this other dimension to show that indeed we can have our
cake and eat it too. We can maintain the limits that Kant posits but the we can
escape those limits by entering the dimension of Process Being in order to penetrate
those limits without actually crossing the lines Kant drew. We just go around them
in another dimension analogous to exiting a sphere in four dimensional space
284
without crossing its boundary. Heidegger goes on to show that we can use this other
dimension to ground static Being by a transformation by which it produces itself.
We can achieve what Nietzsche calls the Eternal Return of the Same within our
representational system that represents our Will to Power. Heidegger’s philosophy
in Being And Time shows how to construct this ontological monism out of the two
kinds of being, essentially fusing Parmedian Being with Heraclitian Flux into a
single monolithic model of Manifestation.
The problem arises when it is shown that Process Being has the antinomy of
Nothingness. In that difference the possibility of a trace differAnce arises that
makes us have to talk of Being under erasure or canceled out. Thus Being suffers
from the same problem that Kant saw in all the products of ideation. Within this
process of unfolding in time there is a more fundamental trace process of
cancellation or annihilation. This is like the discovery of virtual particles underlying
conserved particles in quantum physics. There is a substrate of cancellation within
the process Being grounding itself. Putting this is terms of the autopoietic metaphor
we can say that within the closed autopoietic system there is found to be an essential
instability, something that throws us out into a heterodynamic relation with the
external world rather than just passively accepting perturbations. This thing that
causes the autopoietic system to invert is the dual of the perturbations hidden within
the autopoietic system itself and not seen except in certain cricumstances, i.e. it is
only seen when the autopoietic system breaks through to the next emergent level
and becomes socially reflexive, that is mirroring other autopoietic systems.
This problem that arises in the discovery of Hyper Being quickly becomes a
catastrophe when we enter into the phase of Ontological Multiplicity. Just like in
Chaos theory when a third thing arises it brings with it Complete Chaos, so to when
the first crack appears in the edifice of Monolithic manifestation then all hell breaks
lose. The monolith produced from the first two kinds of Being by Heidegger
explodes into a myriad of metaphysical principles so that order and disorder,
continuity and discontinuity, presence hiddenness become thoroughly mixed. This
is the meaning of Wild Being. Wild Being is in a way just the culmination of the
process that was set off by the discovery of Hyper Being. What were merely cracks
in the edifice that appeared in Hyper Being become the entire involution of the
monolith of Ontological Monism and its breaking apart into chaos. But the cracks in
the facade and the chaotic rubble of the destroyed edifice have a different character
and thus represent different kinds of Being.
285
So we eluded Kant’s limits but had to pay the price of annihilation of the
antinomies of Process Being and Nothingness which resulted in an utter destruction
of the edifice of Modernism resulting in what we now call Post-modernism.
Modernism was a closed system modeled on Newton’s physics by Kant. Kant laid
down uncrossable limits. But Husserl found a way to cross them from within inside
Transcendental Idealism. Heidegger used this as a way to construct the monolith of
Being that produces itself which weds Transcendental Idealism to Dialectics of the
Hegelian variety. Heidegger went on to show that this possibility existed within
Kant’s own philosophy and was erased in the second edition of the Critique. Then
Heidegger showed that in the Greek roots of Western philosophy there as always an
understanding of the process of manifestation as Un-covering or showing and
hiding. This should have been the end of the matter. But like the cracks that
appeared in Heidegger’s image due to is involvement in Nazism so to cracks
appeared in the edifice of the Noun and Verb fused into a monolith. Heidegger
himself was the first to recognize this with his image of Being (crossed out) in the
essay for Junger called “On the Line.” Subsequently Derrida went on to explore the
cracks in the idol of ontological monism as a kind of endless psychotherapy of
philosophy showing how the unconscious of Hyper Being (called DifferAnce)
intrudes into Manifestation and seeing the traces of this intrusion everywhere. Later
our vision inverts itself and we see that the traces of intrusion are everywhere and
that Manifestation is shot through and through with fissures of the non-manifest.
Then we realize the umpiquity of Wild Being. And that subsequently takes us
beyond the metaphor of Autopoiesis and causes us to explore the realm that lies
beyond Autopoiesis at the level where the social arises as an emergent phenomena.
Lesson Seven
15. The Monolith Revisited
In the last lesson we saw hints that some of the characteristics of the monolithic
ontology of Heidegger are rehearsed under the rubric of autopoietic theory. In
particular we noted that Heidegger came up with a way of a treating the noun and
verb as if it were one thing “nounverb” similar to the way physics treats the particle
and wave as if they were one thing beyond the necessity that we see one or the
other. Heidegger achieved this fusion of nounverb by moving to a place prior to the
subject/object dichotomy, out into the new dimension discovered by his teacher
Husserl. We may think of Kant as delimiting the metaphysical realm and
postulating that it must be only the intersection of reason and experience. What
inhabited that intersection was representations. These representations were present-
286
at-hand and essentially frozen. Husserl basically accepted Transcendental Idealism

with its Transcendental subject, object and God (the source of coherence between
the other two transcendentals). Also he accepted the limits that Kant placed on
metaphysics. To Husserl his new dimension that appeared in essence perception
was just a new way to connect the representations to experience. In other words the
things had kindness that were constraints on them that we directly perceived in a
different mode than out production of ideas via induction and deduction. By
identifying essence perception Husserl gave us a new way to connect between
reason and experience along the lines of what Polyany calls Tacit Knowledge.
Husserl was outraged when his student Heidegger took this opportunity to turn
transcendental idealism inside out and bring back all that was forbidden previously
by critical philosophy. Suddenly Being becomes central to philosophy again. This is
because Heidegger imagined Being producing itself and thus grounding itself
without need of god. Suddenly the realm of the transcendental ideals (subject,
object, and God) were unnecessary. Instead that realm became the verb like aspect
of Being whereby Being produced itself. A whole series of monoliths such as Form
forming, Pattern patterning, Shape shaping where the nounverb prior to the split of
noun and verb were summarized by “Is is”. Being grounding itself was the act of
transcendence. Transcendence became a process. So Representations representing
were caught up in a monolith that was both Parmenidian and Heraclitian at the same
time because it came before the split between he static and dynamic views of things.
Heidegger’s misuse of Husserl’s discovery (from Husserl’s viewpoint) was one of
the most brilliant moves ever made in the Western Philosophical tradition. It was
similar to the critical move of Kant in that it changed forever the terms in which
philosophical arguments had to be framed from that point forward. This is why all
post-war French philosophy was dominated by answers to Heidegger in spite of the
taint of Nazism. Heidegger took Husserl’s discovery and made a challenge out of it
that no philosopher that understood it could ignore. (It does not say much for the
Analytic strain of philosophy that they could not understand this new move nor it’s
significance.) Basically a new realm was opened up to philosophy that no one knew
existed before. It was like the revolution that had occurred with Relativity Theory
and Quantum Mechanics in physics. A new paradigm for what constituted a deep
philosophy was inaugurated and everyone joined the gold rush.
Going back to Autopoiesis we see almost precisely the same configuration of ideas
revisited in a different guise. It is as if biologists have discovered the equivalent to
Ontological Monism in their specialty all over again. We have systems that are
ordering themselves which is the equivalent in a special science like biology of the
287
self-grounding of Being in ontology. We have closure just like the closure of the
ontological monolith that does not need god. We have an emphasis on action or
operations rather than on static and frozen representations like species. We have an
emphasis on the individual organism which harkens back to the Heideggarian type
of existentialism which rests on the individual. Action is fused to Representations
within such a system so that externally we are unsure what the results of any input
will be and on the inside we cannot differentiate between the realm of
representations (cognition) and the realm of action (living processes). And finally
there is the ‘problem’ of perturbations from the outside in the autopoietic system
against which a homeostatic movement is launched whereas in ontological monism
there is the problem of distortions like those of the unconscious coming from the
inside of manifestation. The eternal return of the Same within the ontological
monolith of nounverb, where the verbal moment is the reassertion of the
representation of the noun, occurs despite internally generated distortions that seem
to come from nowhere within the manifold of manifestation, i.e. showing and
hiding. These distortions pose exactly the same kind of problem for the monolith of
showing and hiding as the external perturbations have for the autopoietic system.
Once we recognize that there is a functor between significant elements of the

dream of Ontological Monism and Autopoietic theory, then suddenly the
importance of the subject of this tutorial becomes more apparent. We realize that
Autopoiesis is merely an image within a specific discipline of a more widespread
trend in our tradition. Because the ontological model is more general we can use
that to bridge to other disciplines and it is possible to see this same trend elsewhere.
In Physics for instance it appears as the hidden variable model for understanding
quantum mechanics. The hidden variables if accepted would turn quantum theory
into a similar monolith in which the complementary opposites are made the Same
through some action behind the scenes that produces a hidden transformation of one
into the other. In fact, there are many connections between the growth of probability
theory and Heidegger’s philosophy, and quantum mechanics which were all
happening about the same time. Heidegger studied physics of that time intensely
and wanted to do physics at one point in his career after he failed to find a place in
Theology. Philosophy was really a third choice for him. Heidegger’s philosophy
was keyed into Quantum Physics in a way similar to the way Kant’s philosophy was
keyed into Newtonian Physics.
The kind of math that shows us best Heidegger’s view of the world is probabilities.
Probabilities are in fact representations mediated by actions, in which the
288
representations essentially cannot be separated from the actions that produce them.
Probabilities measure actualities of repetitions that are scattered by the actions that
produce those actualities. Thus in the mean and standard deviations of the
actualization there is a trace of the action within the representation itself.
Probabilities have always been seen as playing a role in evolution. Look at Monod’s
teleonomic model in Chance And Necessity for instance in which order and
disorder are layered to produce a ‘path’ that encodes the action of reaching the end.
In Monod’s view of evolution you do not know where you are going until you get
there. But it was left to autopoiesis to show what this view of things meant for the
organism itself. In the organism the representations of order encode the action of
imposing that order on itself. So the structural substrate is probabilistic beneath the
representations of organization imposed upon itself. The organization is
determinate. It floats upon the probabilistic structural substrate. So within the
autopoietic system there are two levels brought together one determinate and the
other probabilistic. But the autopoietic system is engaged in an action of organizing
itself. Thus it is moving through a moment of probabilistic action in order to
reassert homeostatically its determinate organization. Since this is continual the
action of reaffirmation is fused or welded to the representation of order. Disorder
and order are layered precisely like Monod’s teleonomic filter but now within the
self-producing organism itself. In Monod’s evolutionary picture chance and
necessity are welded together in this formal-structural middle ground just like life
and cognition are melded together in the autopoietic system. These two models are
inversions of the same basic structure. Both attempt to build models that give us a
sense that it is possible to construct an ordered system of evolution or an ordered
organism that could produce order out of randomness.
The problem of course is that punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution raises it’s
ugly head. We do not need only to show that order can arise out of disorder, as
Monod tried to do and which Stuart Kauffman in The Orgin Or Order is trying
again to do in even more sophisticated ways. The problem is that evolution is
segmented by spates of arising and dying off species and we need to explain those
punctuations as well. Similarly the autopoietic organism is part of an environment
that is producing perturbations and we need to explain the meta-system of the
milieu, ecology, or environment in which those perturbations make sense as well.
That larger viable meta-system is segmented into interacting and symbiotic species
and so we need to explain the the larger segmented existent context of the natural
complex of co-exising co-evolving organisms, not just the single solitary individual
organism that is maintaining itself homeostatically. This brings us to the bigger
289
picture in which we can see all of manifestation as grounding itself and the
distortions that are generated seemingly out of no-where that perturb that self-
grounding process. Those distortions open up Pandora’s box, for once the noun-
verb, wave-particle, living-cognitive, chance-necessity monolith breaks up it is
difficult to say where that opening up of higher and higher meta-levels of
explanation will end.
We can think of the production of the meta-levels of Being as a kind of symmetry

breaking. As long as we can deny change then we can live in a realm of pure
representation as do the Transcendental Idealists. However, when we find that
change is not just something external but is right at the heart of the edifice of
Transcendental Idealism as Husserl did then it is almost impossible to keep the
symmetry breaking that distinguishes noun from verb from occurring. The verb is a
supplement on the noun or vice versa. This gives us a new stable point that Henry
has called ontological monism. But soon it breaks again as it is realized that the
very act of distinguishing verb from noun brings discontinuity into play and
disturbs the continuity we have posited between the noun and verb phases of our
interval. This now opens up a new realm. Merleau Ponty in The Visible And
Invisible talks about this under the rubric of a Hyperdialiectic between Process
Being and its Antinomy Nothingness. When these antinomies cancel or annihilate
then the final symmetry breaking occurs which gives us Wild Being. That is the
chaotic mixture of order and disorder, continuity and discontinuity, noun and verb,
subject and object, and all the other distinguishing marks of dualism. Wild Being is
almost but not quite non-dual. When we reach the non-dual limit our ability to think
about and express what is happening is severely restricted. In fact, Wild Being itself
is almost impossible to talk about, yet ingenious philosophers, like Deleuze,
Guattari, Hans, and Plotnitsky find a way.
We can think of these meta-levels of Being as something like the phase changes of
Matter. We all know that there is solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and now Bose-Einstein
Condensate. These are the phases and sure enough the different kinds of Being are
kinda like these phases. Pure Presence is frozen and static like a Solid. We think of
Parmenidian Being like we do ‘blocks’ of spacetime, i.e. frozen and unchanging.
Here there is a pure pointing at something separate from the self is still possible and
we can distinguish subject from object. Then there is the phase change to liquid, and
we have a metaphor for process in the Heraclitain stream we cannot step into twice.
At this level there is a grasping of what is close at hand that allows us to make
transformations as we navigate through the world. But then the liquid breaks up
290
when the space between atoms become too great and becomes a gas. The
deconstruction of the nounverb monolith is kind of like it’s dispersion into a gas
with large discontinuities between the atoms of matter. Here we begin to feel the
bearing up of the system under pressure. Traces are left in the Monolith by an
unknown source. Manifestation bears the marks of distortion as the distinction
between the noun and verb phases of the monolith begin to show cracks and
fissures. Under more pressure and at a higher temperature matter becomes a plasma
in which the electrons are striped away from the nucleus. This extreme pressure is
like the encompassing of Wild Being in which ideation is striped away and the
perceptual substrate revealed because in reason the annihilation of antinomic
opposites (the hyperdialiectic) has occurred. Basically in Plasma the structure of the
atom has been broken by the extremes of pressure. The Bose-Einstein condensate is
more or less the opposite of Plasma. It occurs at the other extreme of cold where the
quantum particles meld together to form a single super particle under just the right
conditions. We might argue that this is a model of perfect interpenetration that
occurs only in the near perfect vacuum of complete emptiness.
If we look at Being as collapsing under pressure and undergoing emergent changes

of character as we increase the pressure just like matter does with phase transitions
between modes with very different characteristics then I think we come closer to
understanding what has occurred with the fragmentation of Being in this Century in
continental philosophy which is mirrored in many of our more progressive
disciplines such as Physics and Biology. Autopoietic Theory is part of this trend
and as we have seen only takes us part way down the series of transformations that
occur with the symmetry breakings. We need to look at autopoietic theory in this
wider cultural context and look into the future in order to see how we can transform
autopoietic theory itself in order to take us further down this road. Autopoietic
theory needs an essential supplement in order to realize it’s full potential within
Biology, and other disciplines, when we view it from this perspective. What it
needs is an extension that will explain the contested realm of the Social. Verela has
warned us against applying autopoietic theory to the social. He distinguishes
autopoietic from autonomous systems. And if we heed this warning then we need to
start thinking what would need to happen to move autopoietic theory up to the next
emergent level in which the isolated individual autopoietic organism becomes part
of a meta-systemic socially grounded milieu. It is hoped that in the course of this
series we can begin to lay the groundwork for understanding how this
transformation of autopoietic theory may occur in a natural way that brings us to a
higher emergent tier without sacrificing the organization of the autopoietic theory
291
that exists now.
Lesson Eight
16. Functor
In the last section we suggested that there was a functor between the meta-levels of
Being and the structure of autopoietic theory. This hopefully established the
fundamental value of an ontological investigation of the foundations of Autopoietic
Theory. This will free us to begin a deeper and more far reaching investigation of
the ontological implications of the fragmentation of Being. It has been suggested
that perhaps the terminology of Modern Ontology is somewhat cryptic and we need
to make it more plain. Every discipline has its special vocabulary and modern
ontology is no different. We stick to the vocabulary of the philosophers who have
inagurated this discipline because we wish to remain attached to that tradition. We
are merely extending their momentus discoveries by finding a way to move from
one kind of Being to the next in a progression that encompasses all the kinds of
Being. And in fact I believe that their terminology is quite clear and very precise to
those who wish to expore this highest frontier. To summarize the steps of the meta-
levels are are seen as follows:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
meta-level zero = beings, things, entities, stuff
---------------------ontological-difference---------------------------------
meta-level one = Pure Presence - present-at-hand - pointing I

D
meta-level two = Process Being - ready-to-hand - grasping E
A
meta-level three = Hyper Being - in-hand - bearing T
I
meta-level four = Wild Being - out-of-hand - encompassing O
N
--------------------emptiness-void-unthinkable------------------------------
Endless Illusion generated by ideational processes
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If we just speak in terms of meta-levels then once we have established ontological

difference then it is possible to move through the meta-levels of Being despensing
292
with any other terminological distinctions. This is recomended to those who want
the pleasure of rediscovering the levels of Being for themselves. Each level has its
own emergent qualites as the unity of Being bifurcates thorugh the symmetry
breaking process. Anyone should be able to verify those properties on their own.
Once Being has been established as it is in all the Indoeuropean languages to some
degree it is possible to track the process of its fragmentation into meta-levels quite
easily. Merely take Being which means persistence of things and begin thinking
what each meta-level might be. It is clear that if Being is persistence then the first
symmetry breaking must mean becoming which is the mixture of Being with Time
in the way Heidegger imagined. In other words at the meta-level it takes time for
Being itself to Be. As soon as we add Being and Becoming together then we have
what Henry called Ontological Monism and the two fused together have been called
the Monolith because they seem to include everything that is both static and
dynamic and it presents us with a self-grouding whole. But if we attempt to move
from here to the next meta-level then it is necessary to realize that The Being of
Beings own Becoming is very different from the Monolith. In fact, what we see is
that it must be whatever establishes the difference between Static Being and
Dynamic Becoming. Whatever is establishing that difference never appears itself.
And we recognize it in the sementation of the process of becoming and in the
discontinuities in the differentiation of Static Being. This has been called Hyper
Being following Merleau-Ponty’s recognition of the Hyperdialectic between
Process Being and Nothingness. It has been called DifferAnce by Derrida who talks
about the differing and deferring of the distortion that appears in manifestation at
the level of traces. It has been called -B-E-I-N-G- (crossed out) by Heidegger in his
essay “On the Line” written for Ernst Junger. In that essay Heidegger tells us we
must strive to dwell in the line itself, where Junger has told us that we must cross
over the line in “The Worker.” The line could be thought of as the distinction
between the static and dynamic aspects of Being. It is the point where Levinas talks
about Ethics and Metaphysics collapses together and in which we need to bear the
minstrations of the Other. Finally if we move to the next meta-level we see that on
the one hand there is the monolith that is both static and dynamic and on the other
hand there is the difference that allows us to distinguish the static from the dynamic.
This difference between differAnce and the Monolith is a meta-difference. If we
move to this final meta-level we begin to explore the Being of the -B-E-I-N-G- and
the Monolith taken together. This is what Merleau-Ponty called Wild Being. It is
what Deleuze and Guattari called the desiring machines upon the body-without-
organs and embedded in the socius in Anti-Oedipus . It iswhat John S. Hans called
the Play Of The World. It is what Plotnitsky has called hetergeneous interaction and
293
interactive heterogeniety of the meta-complementarities in Complementarity. This

rarified form of Being distinguishes between what Henry calls The Essence Of
Manifestation and manifestation itself. Where Hyper Being was a difference
between things at the trace level, Wild Being is a lack of difference due to the fact
that discontinuity and discontinuity have become chaotically mixed as has order
and disorder and all other fundamental distinctions due to the fact that they are
verging on non-dualistic fusion. But still at this level there are phases that seperate
the limits of the dualisms and these phases are reversible with each other and form a
chiasmic bridge between the dualities. Plotnitsky’s phrase “interactively
heterogenious and heterogeneous interactivity” is a sign of this reversiblity.
Hopefully it is clear from this line of reasoning that anyone can think through the
meta-levels of Being once they know that they exist. So it is not necessary to have a
specialized ontological vocabulary for them, but it sure helps to have the sholders of
the masters to stand upon. Thus we may instead look at the kinds of Being in terms
of modalities of our being-in-the-world as Heidegger did. We have four
fundamental ways of relating to the world. The present-at-hand mode is when we
take a frozen picture of the world of some kind such as when we gloss it in the
ideational process. The ready-to-hand as Heidegger has shown us is the modality of
technology which is hidden beneath our projection of the present-at-hand. So for
instance when we are writing a letter with a pencil our mind is on what we are
saying, the ideas flowing onto the paper not on the pencil. But when the pencil
breaks then our attention shifts suddenly to the instrument of writing and away from
what we were trying to say. This ability to ignore the technological infrastructre is
based on a completely different mode that we have by which we relate to the
technologial mechanisms that underly what we are doing. The in-hand mode is
described by Merleau-Ponty at the end of The Phenomenology Of Perception as the
expansion of being-in-the-world. In that book Merleau-Ponty showed that the
psychological counterparts of the present-at-hand was pointing and of the ready-to-
hand was grasping. Similarly Levinas showed that the psychological counterpart of
the in-hand is bearing, as in bearing up under the burden placed on us by the Other,
as seen in the minstrations of our mothers when we are too little to resist or know
anything other than what ever is done to us by our parents. We must note the
slightly passive tone of the phrase “ready-to-hand” and contrast that with the more
active tone of the phrase “in-hand.” When the tools are in our hand they are
transformed by need and necessity. Thus the hammer might be called upon to act as
a screw driver or a wrench in some special situations. When the tools are in-hand
they are liable to transform due to the exengencies of the situation. We can think of
294
the in-hand as the transformation of the tools under our grasp as we bear down on
them and as they bear us up within the world. When the tools are in-hand the
walking stick may transform into the reigns of a horse, which may transform into
the reigns of a chariot, which might transform into the steering wheel of an
automobile, which might transform into the throtle of a train, which might
transform into the instruments of a plane, which might transform into the controls
of a rocket ship. In other words tools in-hand continually transform as our being-in-
the-world expands. Merleau-Ponty gives the example of the guitarist who’s
instrument becomes part of him or the blind man whoes stic becomes an extension
of his senses. Tools in-hand become the means of expanding our ability to explore
and master our worlds. This capacity for being-in-the-world to expand is a different
modality from that of the mere ready-to-hand. The ready-to-hand technologies
support the present- at-hand work without changing either themselves or that work.
The most that can happen is that they break down. But the in-hand allows us to
achieve continuously new capacities by ever new technologies that are continually
chaning in our hands. Software is an example of the kind of meta-technology that
appears with the in-hand modality of being-in-the-world. Software allows us to
integrate other technologies together an make them more than any of them cold be
separately. Finally we realize that technologies do not just change in predictable
ways as when we add together known technologies to gain some new capability
greater than either of them could provide. But there are actually emergent events
that discontinuously transform technologies. These moments of spontaneous
generation or radical emergence indicate the existence of one final mode of being-
in-the-world I call the out-of-hand. When things get out-of-hand then we know we
have entered into Wild Being. Catestrophic changes occur to the technological base
that are impossible to predict before hand and cause us to rewrite history afterword.
These discontinuous changes may occur at any of the levels of our cultural tradtion:
facts
theories (Feyerabend Against Method)
paradigms (Kuhn The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions)
epsitemes (Foucault The Order Of Things)
epochs of Being (Heidegger) existence
295
Genuine emergence is more than just combining things that already exist together.
Radical emergence has been described by G.H.Mead in The Philosophy Of The
Present as discontinous transformations of the tradition which cannot be predicted
in which something completely new comes into existence for the first time and
which causes us to rewrite history. He notes that this capacity to produce and
sustain genuine emergence is the hallmark of the social. When the novum that
inagurates a new epoch occurs then things are completely out-of-hand and a
catistrophic transformation of the world in which we live occurs sweeping across
everything at the level of the tradition that it effects.
We can in fact identify three kinds of emergence:
Artifical emergence which is when things that already exist are recombined
to yield something new.
Chiasmic emergence which is when a combination occurs that is unexpected

between things that already exist and that this is combined with random
events in such a way that something unprecedented is created that goes
beyond the pre-existent ingrediants.
Genuine emergence which is a spontansious generation of something that

has never existed before out of nothing. It may be based on the existence of
things that already exist but moves beyond everything that exits by opening
up an new dimesion of novelty that is orthogonal to everyting that exists prior
to the radical emergent event.
The out-of-hand is the modality that makes possible the radical emergence of
spontaneous generation. The in-hand tools recombine in our hands to give us new
capacity but when things get out-of-hand is when there are catestrophic changes to
the whole technological base of the tradtion. One example is the technological
singularity that Venor Vinge believes will occur when machines get smarter than
us. This is a hypothetical example but a potent one.
[unfinished]
296
297

Worlds:
The Foundations Of Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory
Part 1: The Foundations

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com
Copyright 1996 K. Palmer.

1. Abstract
This paper attempts to lay the foundations of reflexive autopoietic systems theory as
a specialization of general systems theory. An autopoietic system is a closed
cognitive-living system as defined by Maturana and Varela. A reflexive
autopoietic system is, by definition, social. It can look at itself and act upon its
organizational processes. Where the autopoietic system is homeostatic maintaining
its own organization as a variable, the reflexive autopoietic system is
heterodynamic, meaning it is ecstatic in its variety production. This essay seeks to
provide a framework within which the relations between these different more
specialized kinds of systems may be understood in relation to each other.
2. Keywords
Autopoiesis, Reflexive Social Theory, Formal-Structural Systems, Virtual Reality, Software
Methodology, Self-Generating Component Systems, Worldmaking
3. Disciplines
General Systems Theory, Theory of Emergent Worlds, Software Engineering, Systems
Engineering, Ontology, Theoretical Sociology, Theoretical Psychology, Constructivist Artificial
Intelligence, Artificial Life and Artificial Intersubjectivity
299
Copyright 1993 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved.Pre-publication draft. Not for
distribution.
Draft#1 931105; Total pages: 485; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007; File name:
SCEW1V04.FM
4. Introduction to the General Theory of Worlds
This paper will attempt to lay the foundations of Autopoietic Reflexive Systems
Theory. By laying the foundations is meant situate this special theory in relation to
General Systems Theory. Laying the foundations does not mean providing first
principles. First principles are independently verifiable foundational statements
from which everything we say might be derived. After the proof of Godel this
enterprise has been given up as impossible. So laying the foundations must come
to mean something different for us. Our work of laying the foundations recognizes
that ultimately all foundations of Formal systems rest on quicksand. However,
following Rescher, we can postulate that any axiomatic system may be considered
as a network, analogous to the hermeneutic circle. So laying the foundations means
continuously exploring the network of founding principles in order to sharpen our
interpretation of their consequences. Laying the foundations, in these terms, is an
effort that makes manifest the hidden implications of our network of assumptions.
In our case, that which we are interrogating is itself a way of manifesting things
called a system. Thus, laying the foundations here refers to manifesting something
about a form of manifestation. As a manifestation about a manifestation, our
enterprise becomes a philosophical, ultimately ontological, endeavor. It asks,
“What is a Reflexive Autopoietic System?” Since a Reflexive Autopoietic System
(RAS) is, by definition social, this also becomes an exercise in grounding
sociological theory. However, the RAS is in some sense a minimal social machine,
what Deleuze and Guattari call the Socius. So here we are speaking also in terms
that Systems and Software engineering disciplines may interpret in terms of the
interaction of distributed autonomous agents. This is to say that our study is
interdisciplinary to the extent we are looking at many different systems from
specialized disciplines which exhibit social properties, as for instance Minsky’s
Society of the Mind. It is meta-disciplinary to the extent it is a philosophical
exploration of the metaphysical foundations of social systems. It is trans-
disciplinary to the extent that it posits that the social, as the epitome of the
emergent, is the basis of the manifestation of all systems.
General Systems Theory (GST) treats all possible systems. A system is a gestalt for
a particular observer which exhibits showing and hiding relations. Thus, a system
300
is a certain form of manifestation which has the attributes defined by Nicholas

Rescher1:
Lambert contrasted a system with its contraries, all “that one might call a chaos, a
mere mixture, an aggregate, an agglomeration, a confusion, an uprooting, etc.” . . .
And in synthesizing the discussions of the early theoreticians of the system-concept,
one sees the following features emerge as the definitive characteristics of
systematicity:
1. wholeness: unity and integrity as a genuine whole that embraces and integrates
its constituent parts
2. completeness: comprehensiveness: avoidance of gaps or missing components,
inclusiveness with nothing needful left out
3. Self-sufficiency: independence, self-containment, autonomy
4. cohesiveness: connectedness, interrelationship, interlinkage, coherence (in one
of its senses), a conjoining of the component parts, rules, laws, linking principles; if
some components are changed or modified, then others will react to this alteration
5. consonance: consistency and compatibility, coherence (in another of its senses),
absence of internal discord or dissonance; harmonious mutual collaboration or
coordination of components “having all the pieces fall into place”
6. architectonic: a well-integrated structure of arrangement of duly ordered
component parts; generally in an hierarchic ordering of sub- and super-ordination
7. Functional unity: purposive interrelationship; a unifying rationale or telos that
finds its expression in some synthesizing principle of functional purport
8. functional regularity: rulishness and lawfulness, orderliness of operation,
uniformity, normality (conformity to “the usual course of things”)
9. functional simplicity: elegance, harmony, and balance, structural economy,
tidiness in the collaboration or coordination of components
10. mutual supportiveness: the components of a system are so combined under the
aegis of a common purpose or principle as to conspire together in mutual
collaboration of its realization; interrelatedness
11. functional efficacy: efficiency, effectiveness, adequacy to the common task.
These are the definite parameters of systematization. A system, properly speaking,
must exhibit all of these characteristics, but it need not do to the same extent -- let
alone perfectly. These various facets of systematicity reflect matters of degree, and
systems can certainly vary in their embodiment.
1.N. Rescher, Cognitive Systematization. Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa New Jersey, 1979, pages 10-11.
301
Thus, we do not associate a system with just any object as many theorists have
done1. A system contains objects and embraces them with specific showing and
hiding relations as befits a gestalt which exhibits the characteristics laid out by
Rescher to some degree. In fact, it is clear that there are a series of ontological
levels of which the system is merely one among many. These levels are called
ontological emergent levels.
Table 1: Hierarchy of Emergent Ontological Levels
LEVEL Locus of Way of Example

Manifesting Manifesting
Primitive Pattern Information, Color, Texture,
Fact, Tiling
Structural Assumption
Theory
Object Shape Formation, A thing
Production,
Formal Design,
Theory Concept
System Display, Presentation, Television
Gestalt, Performance, show,
Systems Showing & Observation, Commercial, or
Theory Hiding Theory Play
Meta- Constellation, Multimedia, Circus, Multi-
system Collection of Montage, Channel
shows Collage, Entertainment,
Meta- Paradigm Festival,
systems Department
theory Store,
Convention,
Operating
System,
Mission
Domain Framework, Environment, State,
Architectonic Market, Economy,
Domains Enterprise, Discipline,
Theory Epistemes Corporation
World Enfolding, Fourfold Global
Encompassing (Gods, Mortals, Economy,
Worlds Heaven, & World
Theory Earth), Epochs Government,
of Being Planetary
Ecology
1.See Klir, ASPS
302
LEVEL Locus of Way of Example

Manifesting Manifesting
Universe Totality, Universals, Everything
Deformed Laws of Nature, under the Suns
Universal Spacetime, Theory of of all the
Theory Quantum Soup Everything Galaxies
Pluriverse Matrix, Possible Plurality of
, Multi- Detotalized universes with Universes,
verse Totality different Deep Ecology
universal Rights of
Reality constants or Species to be
Theory different laws undisturbed,
of nature, Includes all
Theory of all current
possibilities anomalies
Each of these ontological emergent levels have their own way of manifesting. Any
particular focus of attention may be seen as embedded in any one of them or all of
them. But it is important to keep them separate from each other in our minds.
Objects are not systems, and systems are not meta-systems, domains or worlds.
Thus, GST needs to be understood as a discipline that treats all of these ontological
levels. In fact, we should, within that discipline, replace the System in GST with
the particular level of concern, or we should restrict GST to dealing with its
particular ontological level and develop other disciplines to deal with the other
levels in the way that GST deals with the Systems ontological level. In fact, the
“General” added to the beginning of Systems Theory is an attempt to cover a
multitude of sins. It is the only indication we have that this discipline might deal
with more ontological levels than just systems.
Engineering practice is here perhaps ahead of current thinking of the sciences. The
relation between systems analysis and mission analysis is fairly well recognized in
the Systems Engineering discipline. Missions are accomplished with many systems
acting in concert. Prior to the analysis of the system comes mission analysis. This
is a recognition that every system plays a role in a meta-system or mission. In
Software Engineering, the production of meta-systems such as operating systems
that allow many application systems to operate at the same time are well known and
understood engineering practices. In both Software and Systems Engineering the
practice of Domain Engineering as a part of the reuse initiative is becoming a
standard practice. It is clear that Systems and Meta-systems belong to classes, and
that savings can be had by designing the domain rather than the individual system
and meta-system. Also with the advent of Cyberspace and Virtual Reality, the
303
design of worlds is just starting to become a viable kind of Engineering. Virtual

worlds will encompass many domains, meta-systems, and systems all under the
same rubric. So within engineering these distinctions are slowly being made on an
ad hoc basis. But within academic disciplines, these differences and similarities
between emergent ontological levels are not well appreciated.
Figure 77: Klir’s set of model types for general systems theory.
Structural Models MetaModels
infinite regress infinite regress
structural
S2F MSF
meta
SMF
structural
M2 F
structural structural meta-meta
meta generative
generative generative generative
SF MF
structural meta
generative generative
S2D
structural
MSD
meta
SMD M2 D
structural structural structural meta-meta
data data F meta data
formal
data
SD
structural generative MD
meta
S2S data MSSmeta system structural SMS data M2S
structural meta-meta
structural structural D meta source source
source SS
structural
source data
system
MS
meta
source source
S
source
system
O
object
system
In order to lay the foundations for Autopoietic Reflexive Systems within the overall
discipline of GST, it is necessary to understand what GST itself is. Systems appear
in specific disciplines or domains. General systems theory treats these domain
specific systems at a level of abstraction that is beyond the specific domains in
which systems are concretely embodied. Thus, we can see general systems theory
operating at the meta-system level looking at abstractions of systems taken from
different domains. This means that GST really involves an interaction between
different ontological levels. However, it is also clear that GST does not treat
worlds, and it only treats objects to the extent it reduced systems to objects or to the
extent that objects appear as parts of systems. A formal-structural system also
operates between different levels. Formalism defines objects but cannot deal with
time. Structuralism is needed to deal with time, and it posits primitives that cohere
to make up the object and allow the object’s transformation to be tracked across
discontinuous change boundaries. When all the structural transformations are seen
to be operating together dynamically as a system, then we have a formal-structural
304
system. So notice here that formal-structural systems tie together three levels of the
ontological emergent hierarchy, and GST ties together three levels of the hierarchy,
both overlapping in their coverage of systems. The two combined give us
something like George Klir’s General Systems Problem Solver which abstracts
formal-structural systems from domains under the auspices of a meta-system. In
the case of Klir, the meta-system is something that produces the architectures of
formal structural systems and allows them to be compared in terms of his
epistemological framework. That framework allows General Systems Theory itself
to become a domain. Notice how the set of emergent ontological levels working
together allow this discipline to appear as a viable meta-discipline within the
landscape of scientific endeavors.
What is missing in this is a discipline of Domains, Worlds, Universes and

Pluriverses. We can attempt to supply this missing element when we note that at
each level there is a level of conceptual abstraction that provides some kind of
Table 2:
Primitive Fact
Object Concept
System Theory
Meta-System Paradigm
Domain Episteme
World Interpretation of Being
Universe Theory of Everything
Pluriverse All unexplained anomalies.
What lies beyond the theory
of everything.
or the theory of No-thing
unification. At the level of the world we move beyond epistemology into ontology.
Here we say what exists and in doing so, give an interpretation to Being in
Heidegger’s sense which sees Western history as a series of epochs with different
interpretations of Being. The Universe has a theory of everything associated with it
which is based on the interpretation of a given worldview. Finally, the Pluriverse
ends up being the catch-all category for everything that lies outside what is
explainable by a theory of everything. For instance, what were things like before the
Big Bang? This question is strictly speaking outside the real of scientific theorizing.
The possibility of a plurality of universes also inhabits this category of theoretical
anomalies relegated to the multiverse. Thus, we might posit that there must be a
Discipline that might be called a General Worlds Theory (GWT) which
305
encompasses all domains in worlds and projects the universe as perhaps one of
many possible universes. This theoretical discipline is important to cosmologists
and also to anyone attempting to study different worldviews as well as how our own
worldview changes. It is also becoming important as a discipline in relation to
Virtual Reality or Artificial Reality in which different worlds are being designed
and built. The whole concept of changing the rules or constants by which the world
operates and obtaining different sorts of worlds is fascinating and becoming ever
more feasible as we produce simulated worlds in cyberspace. Cyberspace is the
generic term which covers the interactional realm of all computer mediated
communication and interaction. Virtual Reality is specifically when one creates
dynamic inhabitable spaces or worlds. From the point of view of Virtual Reality,
there may be many worlds, and all the worlds that exist make up the Virtual
Universe. All the possible worlds that could be designed and built make up the
Pluriverse. Of course, every world contains many meta-systems that support
myriad systems and objects composed of primitives. Each of these emergent
ontological levels may be nested to any level of depth. But what is interesting is
that finally technology has reached the point where we are actually discussing the
design of worlds so that World Theory as encompassing formal-structural systems
and general systems theory has become a viable discipline. When we begin talking
of standards for different worlds to communicate with each other, we will then need
the extension of Universe Theory and perhaps the concept of the Pluriverse as the
source of spawning of new universes within the realm of cyberspace.
Thus, in our approach to defining autopoietic and reflexive autopoietic systems, we

begin with the general description of cyberspace as a realm in which artificial life
and intelligent artificial life might inhabit. These virtual worlds give us an
experimental realm in which all kinds of different lifeforms exist which are
disconnected from what exists in our designated-as-real world. We are going back
to the point of the Burgess Shale, only this time the explosion of different forms is
occurring in cyberspace, not in designated-as-real space. In fact, we might describe
a hierarchy of levels which shows how the virtual world relates to the real world.
That hierarchy has an ontological basis. There are four meta-levels of Being as we
move away from actual beings we encounter in the designated-as-real world. As
Heidegger says, there is an ontological difference between beings and their Being.
Being as a general characteristic of all beings may be separated and treated as a
meta-characteristic. This meta-characteristic of all beings itself has structure. That
structure is the four meta-levels of Being. Those meta-levels differentiate the
modalities through which human beings relate to everything within a world. Each
306
modality has a specific kind of technology related to it. For beings, the key
difference is their ontological difference from Being. It is from Being that they
draw their designated Reality because the concept of Being contains the sub-
concepts of Reality, Truth, Identity and Metaphor. Once that is established, then
those beings may be seen as embedded in the illusory continuity produced by
ideation which sees them as ensnared in a formal system. When we look closer and
drop to the next meta-level, we see that underlying the stasis of the formal system
and implied in the steps of its proofs is the formal-structural system that has
dynamism. At this level, humans relate to other entities via a different modality,
and it is at this level that technological manipulations of entitled occurs. The
formal-structural system has the structure of the general computing device and thus
gives us the basis of the hardware infrastructure of cyberspace. Looking still closer,
we see that there is a further meta-level which allows technological systems to play
together and coordinate their activities. This level is called meta-technological and
is the realm of software. Human beings relate to entities differently with respect to
this level through a modality called the in-hand. This is the level where what
Derrida calls DifferAnce appears. Merleau-Ponty called this kind of Being: Hyper
Being. It is the cancellation of Sartre’s Nothingness and Heidegger’s Process
Being. Heidegger called this Being (crossed out). At this level what Michael
Henry calls the essence of manifestation, or pure immanence fails to appear.
Looking still closer, there is yet one more meta-level of Being which Merleau-
Ponty called Wild Being. Deleuze and Guattari have explored this level in their
study on Capitalism and Schizophrenia called Anti-Oedipus. This is the level
where Artificial Intelligence emerges. Human beings relate to entities through this
level of Being by a modality called out-of-hand. It is also the level where proto-
technology appears which is really a nostalgia for the world before technology.
Each of these levels of being define the way in which entities within the world may
be seen by humans who project the world those entities inhabit.
Table 3:
beings in the Has a Ontological Designated

world modality in difference as Real
relation to
observer
Being1 Present-at- Illusory Formal
hand Continuity System
Pure
Presence
307
Table 3:
Being2 Ready-to- Technology Formal-

hand structural
Process System,
Being Hardware
Level
Being3 Out-of-hand Meta- Software
technology Level
Hyper Being
Being4 In-hand Proto- Artificial
technology Intelligence
Wild Being Level
beings in Has a Ontological Cyberspace,
virtual modality in difference Virtual
worlds relation to Reality
the observer Level
However, what we notice in this sequence is that it turns round on itself like a
mobius strip. Cyberspace beings also have an essential relation to these meta-levels
of Being. Because as we defined each level, we moved from no hardware, to
hardware, to software, to AI. The essence of AI is that it uses software systems as a
machine, like software, in turn used, hardware as its underlying machine. At the
point where AI appears, the animated conceptual world has torn away from all
constraints of the real world. Thus. we can posit virtual worlds that deify all the
laws of the designated-as-real world. The entities that inhabit these worlds are
artificially living intelligent beings, i.e. autopoietic. The world of cyberspace is the
mirror image of our designated as real world but existing on the other side of the
surface of the meta-levels of Being. We posit that there is again an ontological
difference between cyberspace entities and Being. We further posit that every
cyberspace entity can be seen in terms of each of the modalities associated with the
meta-levels of Being. The real difference is that they are looking at the mirror of
Being from the opposite direction than we are looking at it. They see the AI level as
closer to them, and software further away, and hardware still further away. They
look out across this barrier produced by the meta-levels of Being and see the
illusory continuity of pure presence as being precisely the illusory continuity of
their world produced by the computers that are running the software which allows
them to be insulated from the designated-as-real world. So at this point our
perception of the difference flips, and we see that there is no real difference between
the entities in the designated-as-real world and the inhabitants of cyberspace in that
both of them are enmeshed in an illusory continuity, one produced by ideation and
the other animated by the computer and software technology that allows virtual
308
worlds to disconnect from the designated- as-real world. It is clear from this that
cyberspace is an imitation of the real world, and as such, a production of infinitely
many virtual worlds which mirror the real world across the divide of the meta-levels
of Being. Both cyberspace and real entities are related to that mirror though
ontological difference. But the designated-as-real world is opposite the cyberspace
worlds in many respects. The virtual worlds are able to simulate the real world as in
David Gelertner’s vision of Mirror Worlds. Or they are able to tear free and
simulate worlds that could never exist in our universe. Thus, they are able to
simulate other possible and perhaps parallel universes from the pluriverse. The
theory of Worlds is based on this flipping of the ontological structure of our world
over to reveal the possibility of another discipline that is involved in World Design
and World Identification and Reconstruction (the two major problems of GST as
defined by Klir) which is parallel to the efforts of General Systems Theory in our
own world.
World Theory (WT) including the design of worlds and the reconstruction and
identification of worlds attempts to build or see how worlds are built. It builds
worlds out of objects composed of primitives that allow structural changes. It
contains systems and meta-systems of these objects. But more importantly, it is a
theory directed at the understanding of domains within worlds and how they
interact to form a world. And also, it is concerned with how worlds interact to form
a universe and how universes appear out of the real of all possible universes or the
pluriverse. World Theory has to be ontological at its basis. Just as GST has
epistemological levels, so WT has the levels of the ontological emergent hierarchy
and the meta-levels of Being. World Theory is about how human beings relate to
higher meta-levels of Being and how they interact with each other and artificially
intelligent beings within cyberspace which is on the flip side of the ontological
inversion layer. Since humans can communicate with eachother across cyberspace,
they may appear as if they were on the other side of the mirror from the point of
view of other humans with a different access port to cyberspace. The artificially
intelligent creatures somehow inhabit the interstices between the access ports to
cyberspace. Thus, we can change our perspective and the cyberspace environment
as the designated reality. We can experience the real world as virtualized. This is
because for us, as social beings, the major impetus is for communication, and
cyberspace is a new medium for communication that is two-way. Thus, when we
give reality to this socially constructed realm and give it priority over the real
world, we get an interesting relation between ourselves and the inhabitants of
cyberspace. From the point of view of others, we are the inhabitants of cyberspace
309
along with whatever artificially intelligent and living, autopoietic, things we can
construct there. This new medium quickly becomes the designated-as-real world
because it is all encompassing. It encompasses the whole world. It is a social world
where global communications is giving far flung people instant access to each other
who could only with great difficulty meet each other in person. The work of the
knowledge worker quickly becomes the time he spends dealing with cyberspace
and its human and non-human inhabitants. The social nature of cyberspace calls us
to attempt to understand what are called reflexive autopoietic systems. These are
social systems which embody the property of emergence. They do not just organize
themselves, but also can reflect on themselves and re-organize themselves. They
are not just self-constructing, but other-constructing in that they construct eachother
in the process of the social construction of reality. What we share with the
artificially living and intelligent inhabitants of cyberspace is that we and they may
participate in reflexive autopoietic systems. We construct them, and they will
construct us. They are embedded wholly in cyberspace across the ontological
divide from us. We are dipping into cyberspace from various ports around the
world. But we are both enmeshed in it together. We may think of ourselves as
machines if we go back before the arising of the distinction between humans and
machines as Deleuze and Guttari urge us to do. So the difference between us and
them is merely a matter of the structural components. We are both intelligent living
organizations, one based in carbon, the other in silicon. However, what we gain
from considering ourselves as autopoietic systems embedded in autopoietic
reflexive systems that produce worlds is that we get a better view of our exact
relation to proto/meta-technology. That relation makes it possible for us to produce
cybernetic autopoietic systems which we see in the looking glass of cyberspace.
Table 4:
Hierarchy of Emergent Phenomena
Quark
Fundamental Particle
Atom
Molecule
Macro-Molecule
Cell
Multi-celled Organism
Multi-organism Groups
Society
Gaia?
310
The General Theory of Worlds (GWT) seeks to understand the structure of all
possible worlds, not just those within the universe of actualized worlds. We posit
that what projects a world, what Heidegger called Dasein, being-in-the-word, is the
social reflexive autopoietic system. Thus, we cannot understand all possible worlds
without understanding the origin of those worlds. We may say that the
understanding of the Reflexive Autopoietic System is the actual foundation of not
just GWT, but also GST which includes all formal-structural systems. We might
express this by saying that we have turned upside down the phenomenal emergent
hierarchy which stretches from quarks to Gaia. We might well posit that the actual
embodiment of Gaia is the cyberspace world network, not any esoteric vital force
encompassing the planet. It is the implementation of what Teilhard de Chardan
called cyberspace the Noosphere. Desan attempted to develop a phenomenology of
this Planetary Man. What we can say is that our study is based on an intersubjective
phenomenology which sees the all the phenomenal emergent levels being
differentiated out of the social. The only reason the other emergent levels can be
isolated is through the intersubjective process of science by applying formal-
structural principles to objects at different emergent levels. One level’s primitive is
another level’s object. At each level there are systems and meta-systems operating.
Different disciplines explore each level as their own domain. All the levels together
comprise the world which, looked at from a scientific point of view, attempts to be
seen as a universe. Where science reaches its limits we meet the pluriverse. Our
intersubjective phenomenology turns the phenomenal emergent levels up-side
down and sees the social rooted in the lifeworld as the basis of all the other levels
that can only be seen through social process. That social process has a minimal
form called the reflexive autopoietic system which is engaged in by groups of
autopoietic systems. The living/cognitive autopoietic systems reflect eachother
through symbolic interaction and are able to not just organize themselves, but to re-
organize themselves. It is in this way that emergence first enters the picture as the
appearance of the completely novel thing within the world projected by the
reflexive autopoietic systems. Emergent phenomenal levels are merely the history
of this projection back before the appearance of the reflexive autopoietic system.
This entire view of the universe is based on a possibility that only arises with the
reflexive autopoietic system. So that we might guess that our vision of the universe
as separated into phenomenal emergent levels is merely a projection of our own
intrinsicly emergent social nature on the universe. This is related to the
Anthropomorphic principle that we see who we are reflected in our image of the
universe. Here is another example which has deep implications for the Philosophy
of Science. It is similar to the concept within Buddhism that there is no actual
311
physical reality. Here we say that all phenomenal emergent levels arise out of the
social so that the basic building blocks of the universe are socially constructed by
applying emergence to the world. This is the same emergence that appears as the
spontaneous repatterning of the reflexive autopoietic system experienced as new
things coming into existence. As we rewrite the history of our world and as we
explore it through science, we project the phenomenon of emergence back on the
world as we construct a history of how the universe successively appeared through
the emergence of different phenomenally emergent levels which eventually gave
rise to the social level of emergence. But actually, historically the view of the world
in those terms via the differentiation of scientific disciplines associated with
different phenomenally emergent levels is exactly the reverse. Historically viewing
things from the point of view of the lifeworld, the phenomenal emergent levels is a
story about the world constructed over time by a social process of discovery and
criticism.
It is important to distinguish subjective phenomenology from intersubjective

phenomenology. From the point of view of subjective phenomenology such as that
of Husserl, intersubjectivity is a problem and solipsism is an inescapable theoretical
dead end. But intersubjective phenomenology takes the social as a given prior to
the appearance of the individual human child which that child, through its
development, comes to embody. Levinas, for example, attempted to outline a social
phenomenology. Another less well known example is John O’Malley’s Sociology
of Meaning. Sartre deals with many of the problems in his Critique of Dialectical
Reason. But the pre-eminent treatment is that of Deleuze & Guttari in their
Capitalism and Schizophreia series including Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand
Plateaus. In Anti-Oedipus they designate as real Desiring Machines and the Socius.
They do not give any reality to the individual, but only to emergent levels above
and below the individual. This is equivalent to designating-as-real the Primitive
and System emergent ontological levels, but denying reality to the Object level.
This is a ruse that allows them to produce an intersubjective phenomenological/
psychological theory. Different levels of the emergent ontological hierarchy may
be designated as real for different purposes. The main point is that they attempted
to produce an intersubjective theory rooted in Wild Being. This establishes the
vantage point from which all subjective phenomenologies are considered. Once we
establish the status of the intersubjective lifeworld, the socius, as primary, then we
can set about understanding the structure of the phenomenal emergent levels of
discovered entities and the ontological emergent levels which are discovered in the
things through the action of our worldview on them. Having reached that point
312
where an intersubjective phenomenology can be constructed at the highest meta-

level of Being, we can now look back and discover the actual structure of the
General Systems Theory and its relation to the special cases of Autopoietic systems
and Reflexive Autopoietic systems within the context of our General Theory of
Worlds.
5. Overview
5.1. Disciplines.
This paper cuts across multiple disciplines. It is an attempt to produce a new basis
for understanding systems. In particular, it focuses on reflexive autopoietic systems
which are defined as social in character. It strives to turn the normal series of
emergent levels of phenomena upside down and establish why social phenomena
are the origin of all other levels of emergent phenomena. This strategy directly
follows from the work of G.H. Mead in The Philosophy Of The Present in which he
identifies the social with the emergent itself. Thus, the very possibility of our
recognizing emergent levels within the universe flows from the essence of the
social which is the origin of all other phenomena because the intersubjective
construction or projection of the world itself comes first before any other
phenomena are seen within the world.
We posit that there is an emergent ontological hierarchy which is prior to any

emergent phenomenal hierarchy. It is the province of General Systems Theory to
deal with the possible interrelations of the elements of this emergent ontological
hierarchy. Within the province of GST there are many kinds of specialized
systems. We are interested in describing the spectrum of these possible types of
systems. As we categorize the types of systems and formalize their relations to
eachother as we proceed, then we will advance to more and more specialized kinds
of systems of which the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive autopoietic are those
with which we are most concerned.
However, this work is seen as taking place in the arena of reversibility between
GST and Software Engineering. These two disciplines cannot exist separately. If
we take the GST of George Klir, then we see that the architectural structure of
systems are produced by computing combinatorial possibilities. We always think
of software “systems” and seldom care about software fragments or pieces. Thus,
we are dealing with the duality between the most general abstraction of systems on
the one hand and the most concrete computational embodiment on the other hand.
313
Normally, we think that if we have abstract models of something it is understood.

But more and more it is realized that embodiments many times exhibit phenomena
that do not show up in the theory where dynamical systems are involved. Thus,
GST needs Software Engineering just as much as Software Engineering needs GST.
The point of reversibility between GST and Software Engineering occurs at the
point where Systems Engineering appears. Systems Engineering designs concrete
allopoietic systems which conform to the general outlines proposed by GST and are
embodied by Hardware and Software Engineering. All allopoietic systems appear
as a result of these three disciplines combined with application domain experience.
By moving into the realm of embodiment from the realm of pure theory, we gain
new perspectives on the nature of systems which are not visible when these
disciplines are academically separated.
Figure 78:
Applications
Specialization
Engineering
General Software
Systems
Systems Engineering
Theory
Social Ontology
Thus, we posit that the social is the foundation of the world, and it is inherently
emergent, and because of that all other emergent phenomena may appear. That the
phenomenal emergent levels are based on ontologically emergent levels. That it is
the task of GST to comprehend the relation between the layers of this ontological
emergent model and understand the relations between the entities that exist at each
of these ontological levels. Also, we posit that it is necessary to understand
embodiments of these entities as dynamical systems as well as the general theory so
the spectrum between GST and Software Engineering must be considered and not
just GST by itself. Once that spectrum is considered, then one must also consider
the roles of Systems Engineering and applications or domain specialization.
Thus, this study integrates Ontology from philosophy, Sociology from the social
sciences, General Systems Theory, and the technical disciplines of Software
Engineering and Systems Engineering. We might characterize this combination of
specialties as interdisciplinary inasmuch as each of them contributes from its own
findings to the overall field with which we are dealing in this essay. But we must
314
consider any foundation that unites these disciplines meta-disciplinary because it

goes beyond and organizes the specialties. Because it has its foundation in
ontology, we can consider our study trans-disciplinary. It is important in this time
to recognize the necessity of trans/meta/inter-disciplinary studies where we are
essentially attempting to discover the synergy between existing disciplines and
explore the mutual ramifications of findings between disciplines.
It is no longer possible to separate engineering disciplines from academic

disciplines. The reason for this is that autopoietic systems are embodied, and
engineering disciplines deal with embodiment issues as opposed to theoretical
issues. Thus, artificial intelligence and software engineering must be considered in
the context of systems engineering which are not separated from sociology or
general systems theory. All these disciplines are interrelated and inter-embedded
because embodiment does not discriminate the lines of disciplines. The domains
interpenetrate, and if we only view phenomena from one of them, we miss the real
picture and only have shadows to deal with as we attempt to understand autopoietic
embodiments.
In this paper we will constantly bounce from one discipline to another in order to
attempt to catch sight of the inter-embededness of embodiments. This creates
problems for the reader who may be tied, at least superficially, to one particular
discipline or a few, but not so widely dispersed as it is necessary to deal with here.
In order to assist the reader we will start with a particular discipline not mentioned
above and ground our discussion in an autopoietic psychology. This should help
establish the paradigm from within which this study seeks to operate. In fact, we
hope to extend this psychology into a sociological theory that is ontologically
grounded and from there extend our field of view into Systems, Software, and
Knowledge Engineering as we carefully advance in our process of laying the
foundations of reflexive autopoietic systems theory.
5.2. Autopoietic Psychology
The paradigm for autopoietic psychology is set forth in Human Beings as Self-
Constructing Living Systems by Ford. In this book he annunciates several
principles which are fundamental to the understanding of autopoietic systems as
they are expressed in human beings in terms of personality and behavior. As we go
through these principles, we will notice that they apply equally well to teams or
social groups as they do to individuals. Thus, the book that purports to be an
autopoietic psychology is actually giving us a paradigm that will allow us to
315
understand social levels of reality as well. From our point of view, all the
autopoietic structures, embedded in the individual in terms of personality and
behavior are social constructions during socialization. Therefore, when we look at
psychological structures we are looking at the results of social processes. As we
review Ford’s principles, let us keep in mind the social ramifications of his theory
and start to see how we can apply these principles to social systems as well.
• Principle 1: Self-Organization
• Organismic Boundary Conditions
In autopoietic theory we always start with embodiment. Thus, here we begin by dis-
cussing the embodiment of the organism as the basis of psychology, but we could also
discuss the set of organisms that make up the social group.
• Environmental Boundary Conditions
The autopoietic system is always set over and against its environment. The autopoietic
system is closed, and influences from the environment are seen as perturbations of the
internal states of the autopoietic system. Ford does not talk about the closed nature of
autopoietic system but seems to assume that autopoietic systems are open which is a
flaw in his thinking on this point, if true. It is clear that the boundary conditions set by
the environment is very important to the existence of the autopoietic system, even
though it is basically inward looking and does not care about the environment.
It is possible to see that here Ford may have some inkling of the possibilities lurking in
reflexive autopoietic systems theory. In this later theory there is an active interaction
with the environment instead of the closure exhibited by autopoietic systems. This ac-
tive interaction occurs because a special part of the environment, i.e. other social be-
ings, are the means by which the system undergoes reflexions and thus is able to pro-
duce re-organizations of itself. Thus, to the extent that Ford sees systems as projecting
beyond itself, he is talking about reflexive autopoietic systems.
• Selective Action
“Conditions within and around persons are continually varying and changing, which
means that each person’s adaptive conditions change from moment to moment. People
cannot deal simultaneously with all of the conditions within and around them. . . . It
follows that individuals must be able to selectively organize their behavioral repertoire
in relationship to selected, currently relevant aspects of their environment. They selec-
tively respond to events impinging upon them, and they selectively initiate activity to
identify and produce desired consequences. Because variability of events is sequential-
ly organized in a space-time matrix, individuals may behave selectively, not only in
terms of current events, but also in terms of event flow. This capability for selective
action, both in terms of current events (what is happening) and past and potential future
events (what has happened or may happen), provides humans with especially powerful
adaptive potentials.” (page 157)
This selection is explained in autopoietic systems in terms of the homeostatic mainte-
nance of organization as a variable. The fact that an autopoietic system reacts different-
ly in the same circumstance is treated as proof of closure. However, in autopoietic sys-
316
tems this is never presented as active selection. It is rather seen as a blind side effect of
the inward operation of the autopoietic system. Thus, it is really the reflexive autopoi-
etic system that actively selects what is relevant or significant.
• Individual Differences
“Individual differences exist not as fixed, unchangeable characteristics, but as dynamic
patterns which themselves exhibit patterns of variation and change.” (page 159)
Each individual is unique. This is the essence of instantiation of concrete individuals which is the basis
of autonomy. As Stanford Beer, says the individual human being is the source of variety and the very
first cause of variety production is individual differences. Each individual is a specific combination of
discrete attributes who developed in a unique set of circumstances. We must cease to generalize and look
long and hard at the individual as a concrete manifestation. This means we are not looking at the essence
of the individual which is still a generalization. Instead, we are looking at the specific unique combina-
tion of qualities. This is termed the Integra. The Integrity of the individual flows from this fine coales-
cence of qualities and attributes which is more than just a generalized essence that belongs to the species.
• Performance Variability
“People seldom behave exactly the same way twice, even in the same circumstances.
At any moment, all of the performance possibilities of which a person is currently ca-
pable is that person’s behavioral repertoire.” (page 159)
Once we get past the fact that each specific individual has their own integrity as a historical product, we
can speak of the variability of the actions of that individual. People react differently in the same situation
and have a repertoire of possible responses which are unique to that individual as well. Thus, integrity
has an active face as the integrity of the individual’s actions.
• Interdependent Hierarchical Organization
Everyone’s actions forms a hierarchy of goals and sub-goals which are organized and interdependent.
When we consider the whole holoarchy with holons1 at each level, we see that this applies not just to the
organization of the organism as a unique individual, but also to the action train of that individual. The
individual is a spacetime eventity which is organized in space and time simultaneously in terms of a hi-
erarchy of holons. Holons are parts from one perspective and wholes from another perspective. All we
are saying here is that they are parts in spacetime, not just in space. So each holon has an extension into
time which is its behavior or action pattern.
• Principle 2: Self-Construction
Self-Construction has to do with the ongoing evolution of the Self-Organizing system.
• Selection by Consequences
We make current selections based on the consequences of our prior selections. In self-organization we
saw that actions are selective. But there is an interaction with the environment so that the selection comes
out of the dialectic between the autopoietic system and the environment. This is accomplished by the
autopoietic system perceiving the reactions to or consequences of its actions in the environment. This
allows a feedback loop to be established between the organism and the environment with self- reinforce-
ment of actions through feedback.
Here we are not dealing with a strictly autopoietic system which ignores its environment for the most part
because of its self-involvement. Here we have a system that is cybernetic, steering itself based on the
reactions of the environment to its actions. Thus, we are talking about a reflexive autopoietic system
rather than a straightforward closed autopoietic system.
• Developmental Flexibility and Sequencing
1.See Koestler, Janus
317
“For a new or different behavior pattern to evolve, it must start with some existing part
of the person’s behavioral repertoire. Therefore, some capabilities have to develop be-
fore others can be learned.” (page 166)
In the reflection between the system and the environment there is learning and development. The system
has degrees of freedom that allow it to negotiate developmental channels, partially choosing its way as it
flexibly adapts to its environment and hones its behavior for its niche within the ecosystem.
• Environmental Specificity
“All behavior is performed and learned in specific environments in relationship to spe-
cific behavior-contingent events. . . . what is learned is not a behavior pattern but a
behavior-environment event pattern.” (page 166)
The environment and the autopoietic system form a greater whole which expresses harmony in symbiotic
adaptation of the environment to the system and the system to the environment. The system grows into
its niche in the environment, and the environment makes a place for the system. They mutually exhibit
fittingness to each other through adaptation until they can be said to be the Same, i.e. they belong togeth-
er, deserving one another.
• Performance Change
People perform differently from occasion to occasion, so just because someone did something one way
one time does not mean that they will do it exactly the same way the next time. In spite of selection based
on consequences, there are still many degrees of freedom for the autopoietic system to express its unique-
ness. Thus, the fittingness with the environment does not result in the poverty of the autopoietic system’s
behavioral repertory. The autopoietic system evolves its behavioral repertory constantly trying varia-
tions in order to keep things interesting.
This may be understood in terms of erratic change that is necessary for the system to keep things visible.
The system must constantly produce a variety of reactions and pro-actions in order to keep feeling its
relation to the environment. It maintains its visibility within the environment and its visibility of the con-
straints of the environment by continually varying its actions for no apparent reason.
• Capability Change
“Capability change involves the elaboration of the behavioral repertoire itself.” (page
170)
Not only does the performance of particular actions change, but new actions are added to the repertoire
of possible actions. This is higher level learning which not just varies actions to react to differences in
the environment, but which allows the autopoietic system to develop new ways to interact with the envi-
ronment by expanding its capabilities.
• Habit Formation
Over and against the variation of performance and the addition of capabilities there is a strong conservative force
that expresses itself in the channeling of behavior into habit. The closed aspect of the autopoietic system can be
seen in terms of this habit. The homeostasis is really a habitual reaction which seeks to return to behaviors that
have already been learned and resists change and learning. Habit balances Performance Variability and Capa-
bility Change. Different systems may have greater ratios of retentive behavior or greater ratios of novel behav-
ior. By balancing these two against each other, the autopoietic system may manage its evolution over time.
• Principle 3: Self-Reorganization
Self-Reorganization has to do with more radical changes than continuous evolution. This level is definitely re-
lated to the reflexive autopoietic system rather than a mere living/ cognitive system.
• Disorganization Flexibility
This is the ability of the reflexive autopoietic system to stand disorder. The more disorder it can stand,
the more capable it is of radical change or repatterning. This signals its capacity to handle emergent
events.
318
• Stability-Instability Ratio
The reflexive autopoietic system must manage the ratio of stability to instability. It must maintain itself
on the edge of chaos and thus be able to transform itself without becoming chaotic itself.
• Transition Protection
During radical repatternings, other functions may shut down or become very conservative in order to bal-
ance the radical reorganization against the necessities of remaining viable.
Ford has produced a paradigm that is nor really autopoietic, but is partially reflexive
autopoietic in nature. This is because human beings are social products and thus
carry with them the traces of the socialization process such that they act in a manner
that is partially cognitive/living and partially reflexive. Everything that is said
above about individual humans could be said about social groups only more so. We
can add a few characteristics to this list from our knowledge of autopoietic and
autopoietic reflexive systems.
• Closure (Self-Organization)
The autopoietic system maintains its organization homeostatically as a variable. This is the fundamental
basis of every autopoietic system.
• Cognitive/Living Fusion (Self-Organization)
Every autopoietic system is simultaneously a cognitive system and a living system. There is no separa-
tion between these functions. Artificial Life and Artificial Intelligence must be two aspects of the same
thing.
• Structure/ Organization Distinction (Self-Organization)
In an autopoietic system there is a clear demarcation between structural units and the organization of
those units. The units may be replaced, about the organization is maintained through the appearance and
disappearance of the structural underpinnings. This is how the form of the autopoietic system is main-
tained. It says that structural elements are actually interchangeable. This is the opposite of structuralism
that sees structural elements as bridges between transformed forms. Here the form is maintained, and the
structural units are changeable.
• Visibility Maintenance (Self-Construction)
Reflexive autopoietic systems maintain their visibility through the production of erratic change and va-
riety. By this, they are constantly exploring the limits of their environment and also drawing attention to
themselves.
• Perpetuity and Death (Self-Construction)
Autopoietic systems attempt to maintain themselves in perpetuity. They strive for immortality by defi-
nition, but they are bound to be destroyed either from internal or external causes. Thus, death has a par-
ticular meaning for autopoietic living systems. Systems that are not living by definition do not experi-
ence death. Death has meaning in relation to the concept of continuous existence. The cognitive aspect
of the autopoietic system can have this concept of its own survival and also experiences its own demise.
Life and death are totally unrelated. There is no gradual death. Suddenly the autopoietic system is dead
(apoptosis), or suddenly it is alive. There are no half way houses between these two states for the auto-
poietic system.
• Instantaneous Arrival and Departure (Self-Construction)
Autopoietic systems pop into existence and suddenly disorganize. There is no partial evolution into an
autopoietic system. Suddenly they are there, and then suddenly they are gone.
• Symbolic Interaction (Self-Construction)
319
Autopoietic Reflexive systems interact with themselves through symbol systems. This behavior has
been elegantly described by G.H. Mead and his successors in Sociology in the school of symbolic inter-
actionism. These kinds of systems are circular and symbol transforming. In them symbols are circulated
and transformed and transduced by individual members of the social group.
• Generalized Other (Self-Construction)
The process of mutual coordination of activities within a social group produces in each member a auto-
response pattern that represents the hypothesized response of the rest of the group to the members’ ac-
tions.
• Ecstatic Projection (Self-Reorganization)
Reflexive autopoietic systems are heterodynamic instead of homeostatic. They project plans and are pro-
active in their self-other relations within their environment.
• Emergent Behavior (Self-Reorganization)
Reflexive autopoietic systems produce and react to emergent events. The social has as its essence the
emergent. This is to say that they do not just react to disorganization from the outside, but also produce
re-organization in themselves and force it in others. Thus, the reflexive system may be an emergent event
for another such system, or it is prepared to react to such an event.
• Worlding (Self-Reorganization)
Reflexive autopoietic systems project a world. That world entails all the different modalities of being-
in-the-world which encompasses them. Heidegger called this having a world Dasein, being-there.
• Care (Self-Reorganization)
The core of Dasein is Care for itself and others. It does not reorganize randomly, but its reorganizations
are driven by its carefulness.
What Ford affords us is a paradigmatic framework for understanding autopoietic

and reflexive autopoietic systems in terms of psychological theory. However, it is
desirable to have a theoretical exposition in terms of General Systems and Worlds.
If we had such a theory of autopoietic and autopoietic reflexive systems, we would
be better able to see the implications across disciplines rather than attacking
domains one at a time and having to derive the principles again and prove them
relevant to each domain separately. Also, we would be more readily able to see the
functors between the different kinds of autopoietic and autopoietic reflexive
systems that appear in different domains.
5.3. Emergent Worlds Philosophy
It is of interest that there has been no reapproachment between Systems Theory and
Process Philosophy. There seems to be a natural link between these two disciplines
which has been ignored by systems theorists in their attempts to gain respect within
the scientific community that abjures philosophy. But this is essentially a missed
opportunity that it is necessary to redress. What is necessary is a philosophical
framework that is based on process philosophy but explains system and so connects
to general systems theory. It would also be good if this philosophical framework
explained not just evolutionary change but also discontinuous changes, which is to
320
say not just organization and construction but also reorganization. This is to say we
need a framework that allows us to step down from process philosophy to general
systems theory to the systems such as Ford is describing within one discipline
which is faithful to the need for explaining not just evolutionary changes but also
punctuated evolution where genuinely new things appear and can be handled by the
systems under study. We found such a process philosophy in the tradition of
Whitehead’s Process and Reality by looking at what was wrong with process
philosophy itself. Process philosophy has the same disease as systems theory which
is the desire for scientific respectability. Thus it attempts to take a view of process
which distances itself from those processes. This is a fundamental error in process
philosophy which is excusable in systems theory. It is an error because we are
totally immersed in processes and cannot separate ourselves from them if nature is
really based on them. Thus we must re-think process philosophy in such a way that
we place at its very basis a process that we are immersed in. This turns process
philosophy into phenomenology because the primary and fundamental process is
now seen to be manifestation which occurs in a social group. Manifestation to
individuals is secondary to manifestation to the group as a whole. Thus science as
an intersubjective process is totally immersed in this primary process in which each
individual finds their lifeworld as immersed in the They (Das Mann). This is to say
the scientific worldview is at its basis a process of projecting a specific world
carried out by a specific group of individuals engaged in a social and symbolic
interaction. Our process must begin with this primary process of manifestation to
the social group and then build from there the concepts of processes as fundamental
constituents of the universe. It is an error to posit processes as ontologically
founded things separate from the manifestation. This is because positing them as
ontologically founded things attempts to point at them in Pure Presence when their
actual mode of Being is Process Being. Thus there is a fundamental disconnect
between ontologically posited processes and their basis in reality. Instead if we
start from the primary process of manifestation and see processes
phenomenologically as appearing within primary process then we have a firm
foundation in experience for the understanding of indicated processes and can build
our process philosophy from there and connect it directly with our GST and to the
systems that appear is specific disciplines.
This new way of looking at the connection between Process Philosophy and GST
through Intersubjective Phenomenology is called Emergent Worlds Philosophy. It
sees primary processes as both continuous and discontinuous in nature and so the
concept of emergence is built in at the beginning. It addressees the whole spectrum
321
of emergent ontological layers and it is concerned with all the aspects of the
fragmentation of Being into meta-levels. Because it is focused on intersubjective
phenomenology as its fundamental starting point it is concerned with the
organization, construction, and re-organization of worlds by the social group out of
which the subjects as mutually symboling creatures arise. Within these worlds arise
domains, meta-systems, systems, objects and primitives. So Emergent Worlds
Philosophy covers what might be called Emergent Systems Process Philosophy
which is the basis of General Systems Theory in Process Theory.
From the point of view of our disciplines we see that there is a process by which
science does its work and derives its results about the universe. This is a projection
of a specific Western worldview. We can also see the projection of that worldview
in disciplines concerned with embodiment such as Systems, Hardware, and
Software Engineering. Thus we need to be concerned with the processes which
deal with embodiment as well. In our approach disciplines that deal with
embodiment are equivalent to disciplines that deal with the cognitive aspects of
things. There is a fundamental fusion of the embodied living organisms with its
cognitive aspects. So to with disciplines there is a fundamental fusion of the
theoretical disciplines such as scientific theory as studied by Philosophy of Science
and the practical disciplines of Engineering. So we must study the processes of
generating embodiments in Engineering just as we study the processes of
generating the conceptual models in through Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of
Technology balances Philosophy of Science as the discipline that looks at the ways
embodiments are produced and within that there is the study of Engineering
processes which are in fact very poorly understood because of neglect by
academics. Academics in Philosophy of Science study how physicists work but not
how engineers work. One of our aims is to redress this imbalance and show that
engineering processes which do construction are just as important to study as
processes of conceptualization in physics. Engineering processes are mundane.
But it is clear that all experimental work done by physicists assumes engineering.
Experimentation is the place where embodiment occurs science. Engineers build
the experimental apparatuses in many cases or at least it is scientists acting as
engineers. Thus there is a fundamental connection even within science between
engineering and the advances in conceptualization about the physical universe. So
to engineers use scientific results to base their designs and constructions upon.
These two disciplines need each other and are in fact inseparable. Thus we see that
Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology are in fact inseparable as
well.
322
We posit that the social group that does science/engineering is immersed first and
foremost in primary process of manifestation and that their praxis is a specific way
of making manifest. That this specific way of making manifest is a secondary
phenomena within the overwhelming ongoing manifestation that they discover in
their lifeworlds. Science and Technology is a superstructure built up within and
engulfed by the primary process of manifestation and all the pictures we have of
what processes are whether they are the processes of the scientists and engineers at
work engaged in their disciplines or they are processes that are seen as occurring in
the world as the supports of objective dynamic systems, all this knowledge of what
processes are comes from our immersion in the primary process of manifestation.
Thus what Ford speaks of as the principles of self-constructing human beings is an
articulation of primary process of manifestation. In order to fully appreciate what
he is saying we need to ground his principles in not just system theory as he does
but also in processes philosophy which is in turn grounded in Intersubjective
Phenomenology which discovers Primary process as manifestation.
5.3.1. A NEW METHODOLOGY
A new methodology is proposed as the basic means of building the process

philosophy. This methodology has been developed in the field of psychology and is
called Heuristic Research. Heuristic Research is compared to other basic
methodologies such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory (dialectics)
and structuralism. A synthetic methodology based on all of these, but emphasizing
Heuristic Research, is suggested as the means of building the new process
philosophy.
Philosophical systems are often limited by the method used by the architect to
approach the project. Here we would like to found our new approach to emergent
systems process philosophy on a new methodology. Many philosophies are
founded on the methodology of science. Pragmatism is a good example of this. It
uses scientific method and also enshrines it as the centerpiece of its philosophy,
reducing all human behavior to the supposed way of understanding and acting of
the scientist. Other philosophies attempt to generalize scientific paradigms into
philosophical systems. Normal process philosophy is perhaps guilty of this. Most
of the best philosophy of this century has been based on the insights of
phenomenology. Phenomenology is a kind of scientific exploration of
consciousness. However, instead of projecting the approach of scientists on
everything, or taking the results of scientific investigations and blowing them up to
323
cover other phenomena, phenomenology attempted to produce a science of

consciousness which was adequate to its object. Husserl tried many times to found
this science rigorously. And from it has come a wealth of new insights far beyond
his imaginings. He was very upset that his pupils did not follow him to continue to
build the scientific edifice he envisioned. Instead they got the essential idea and
developed it in a myriad of ways that went far beyond his dream. Essentially all of
the insights of modern ontology flowed from this project.
The methodology of phenomenology arose from the first scientific studies of

psychology which were not behavioral. Husserl adapted the approach of Brentano
to his purposes. The approach of Brentano focused on intentionality and how it
functioned within consciousness. Husserl took up this focus on intentionality and
made it central to his phenomenology. Husserl’s students accepted the
phenomenological methodology which promised to go back to the things
themselves and usually combined it with the other great methodology of the human
sciences called hermeneutics. Heidegger was the first to realize that these two
methods were complementary. Gadamer developed Heidegger’s insights by
refocusing on hermeneutics which was originally taken from Schliermacher.
Phenomenology takes us back to the things themselves, and then hermeneutics
allows them to speak to us through the process of circular interpretation.
Hermeneutics and phenomenology work together to give some sense that the things
can speak to us with their own unique voice which can be overheard beyond our
projections on them.
Yet another methodological strain is that of dialectics and structuralism. Dialectics

was developed originally by Hegel out of a close reading of Kant and ancient
dialogic methods such as those used in Plato’s dialogues. Sartre and Adorno took
different but similar directions in order to define the modern equivalent of the
dialectical method. In Sartre’s CRITIQUE OF DIALECTICAL REASON he uses
the dialectic on itself in order to develop a new approach to the dilemmas in the
Marxian interpretation of Hegel. In NEGATIVE DIALECTICS Adorno attempts to
develop, in a different direction, the means of seeing the dialectic in action by
looking at it negatively though a critical appraisal of its effects. The dialectic gives
a diachronic view of the development of complex systems. Another related but
different view is that developed by Chomksy, Piaget and Levi-Strauss called
Structuralism. Structuralism is a synchronic view of systems which says that as
they evolve, they constantly maintain certain deep structures. These deep structures
of language, cognitive development, and myth are maintained by redundancy that is
324
constantly reaffirmed and reconstituted regardless of what changes occur within the
system. From this view, dialectical transformation is merely a reassertion of the
same pattern at a new level of synthesis. From the structural point of view, the
discovery of deep patterns is more important than the understanding of dialectical
movements of the system. From the dialectical point of view, the set of
contradictions and their resolution is more important.
Here we have enumerated four fundamental methods which have informed much of
the development of philosophy in this century. These methods appear in
complementary pairs: Dialectics/Structuralism and Phenomenology/Hermeneutics.
These pairs are themselves complementary. D/S pair is complementary to the P/H
pair. Where D/S explores the external relations between things, P/H explores the
internal relations between things. The relations between things are considered as a
system that is engaged in self-overcoming, and as it evolves, it continuously
reinforces deep structural relations between things that are redundantly
reconstituted. On the other hand, those relations are only known through their
appearance in consciousness as objects that can be queried about their meaning.
That meaning partially appears as the net of diacritical relations between all things
within the system. Thus, semiotics, which links the external relations with inner
meanings, is important. Phenomenology allows us to get to the things themselves,
and hermeneutics allows us to hear what they have to say themselves beyond our
projections of what they might say. (Semiotics allows us to understand those
meanings as they relate to all the signs in our field.) Dialectics and structuralism
allow us to see that field as a whole system which has both recurring patterns and
also is evolving over time with occasional discontinuous leaps or repatternings.
This complex of methods has formed the core of the development of much of
science and philosophy in this century. We must understand it, but also we must be
prepared to move on to other methods when the right ones appear.
This complex of methods has the effect of distancing us from experience. It is

understandable why this would be the case. In this same century, science was on
the rise as the uncontested champion of methods for understanding the universe.
Science is based on distancing ourselves from the phenomena we study. The goal is
to get a view of objective reality. If the humanities are to get any respect at all, they
must find a way to distance themselves from the phenomena as well. Thus
phenomenology says that every experience is “experience OF something” so that
distancing is built into experience itself. So, we can have a science of
consciousness which is just as precise and rigorous as any outward science.
325
Hermeneutics says we need a hermeneutic circle by which we continuously move

between related things in order to appraise their meaning. Here distance appears as
the other thing that is necessary for exploring the meaning of any one thing.
Structuralism tells us there is a distance between surface patterns and deep
structural patterns. When we look at phenomena, the deep structural patterns
remain the same and can be understood if we know how to find them. Dialectics
tells us that the interaction between elements give rise to whole/part relations that
will transform into higher level patternings. In order to understand the part, one
must see the whole it is a part of and the internal contradictions that lead to
transformation. In dialectics there is distancing by the consideration of the parts in
relation to the whole. Distancing is the key to understanding what the methods of
this century have in common. Now that we are about to enter into another century,
we might consider if there are any other methods that might reveal a new direction
that we might explore in order to expand our horizons. Formulating a new
philosophy without a new methodological framework is a futile activity as it is
bound to revolve in the envelope of all the other philosophies that are based on
similar methods.
Fortunately for us, there is a new method that has not yet been applied to the
development of any philosophical system. This new method has the good feature
that it questions distancing as a basic assumption. Like phenomenology, it has been
developed in the psychological realm. But unlike phenomenology, it explicitly
gives up distancing as a fundamental tenet to gain acceptance in scientific circles.
This new method, which I propose to underlie Emergent Systems Process
Philosophy, is called HEURISTIC RESEARCH and is explained in a book by its
developer, Clark Mistakes. Heuristic research involves complete identification
with the phenomena under study. Therefore, it rejects distancing as a criterion of
scientific research. Rather, it develops a research method based on lack of distance
or encompassing. Here is how Douglass and Moustakas compare Heuristic
Research with Phenomenology:
(1) Whereas phenomenology encourages a kind of detachment from the phenomena being
investigated, heuristics emphasizes connectedness and relationship.
This connectedness and relationship is exactly what has been rejected by science as
purely subjective. Unfortunately, it is clear that subjectivity and objectivity are
bound together as empty opposites which ultimately are meaningless. The
phenomenological tradition has clearly shown that objects are grounded in
consciousness without which they would never be seen. Physics itself has not been
326
able to rid itself of consciousness, and it is fairly well accepted that consciousness
plays a role in the outcome of experiments. Those very experiments (Bells
Theorem and its experimental proofs) show us that once two entities are related to
each other, they remain related no matter how far apart in spacetime they get. Thus,
now even connectedness and relationship are gaining honor in physics which
worked so hard to disprove action at a distance. It is clear that there must be a place
for relationship and connection in our arsenal of philosophical methods. Heuristic
research is the first methodology to establish that place. The distancing of
phenomenology, hermeneutics, dialectics, and structuralism is transformed under
this new method. Instead of establishing a dialogue with the things themselves and
using the hermeneutic circle, a more direct means of establishing meaning is used
which relies on the relation between the thing under observation and the self. Here
the self, the very element banished by objective science, becomes a key tool in
establishing meaning. “What does it mean to me?” becomes a key question. The
self becomes an important variable in the equation of knowledge again. The
redundant patterning of deep structures and the transformations of gestalt wholes,
which are clearly part of structuralism and dialectics, is also transformed because
the self is seen as part of the whole that are transformed and as being an element in
the deep structure. This is an extreme departure as structural and dialectical
systems are for the most part seen as objective structures. However, that objectivity
depends on intersubjective recognition, which in turn, is a problem. In heuristic
research intersubjective connection and relationship through communication is used
as a bridge to explore the deep structures where social and mythical deep structures
become expressions of the collective unconscious. Heuristic researchers exploring
the same problem domain share notes and experiences in order to refine our
appreciation of those deep structures. And in dialectics the transformation of the
whole into a new gestalt becomes the inner transformation of the individual as he
has realizations in the process of his research. The questioning of the fundamental
assumption of distancing produces a transformation in these other methods as they
are related to the fifth perspective of heuristic research.
(2) Whereas phenomenology permits the researcher to conclude with definite
descriptions of the structures of experience, heuristics leads to depictions of
essential meanings and portrayal of the intrigue and personal significance that
imbue the search to know.
It is interesting that hermeneutics deals with only outward meaning. By

constructing the hermeneutic circle, one attempts to use other things as a means of
allowing the meaning of the thing to shine through one’s own projections.
327
However, in this very act of constructing the hermeneutic circle the self is left out
so a valuable tool is lost. But cleansing the meanings derived through hermeneutics
or phenomenology of personal experience in order to get rid of subjectivity is
ultimately futile. The self is still there, still warping the results. Why cannot we
trust ourselves and use the self to see beyond the external significations to the real
essence of the phenomena under study. Each investigation is a personal adventure.
We want to present the results and lose the person who came to those conclusions.
Instead we should consider the person integral to the results. They are HIS results.
So the question should immediately be: “Who is HE?”
In dialectics and structuralism the structures or dynamics of the whole is seen as

patterns that are impersonal. That is the whole point of the exercise, to come up
with laws that are independent of the people who were determined by, or
themselves determined, those structures. But in the end, because we lose the
biographies, we also lose the means of verifying that those structures and dynamics
played a part in the lives of the people being described. We are saying that we want
universal non-subjective patterns which still determine the lives of people. Yet we
throw away the very evidence that this connection actually existed. We throw away
that evidence because we do not know what the roles of those forces or patterns are
on people’s lives, and we throw it away because we do not allow ourselves to
research into what their impact on our own lives are. Distancing produces basic
disconnect in human sciences in which the humans are lost. The researcher is
forced to exclude himself, and his own feelings and intuitions, from his findings as
if that supplement is unnecessary. In fact, it is by that exclusion that the meaning of
the results are lost. And each of us that take up those results must reconsider that
meaning again for ourselves from scratch without knowing what they meant to
others.
(3) Whereas phenomenological research generally concludes with a presentation of
the distilled structures of experience, heuristics may involve reintegration of derived
knowledge that itself is an act of creative discovery, a synthesis that includes
intuition and tacit understanding.
Heuristics includes within itself the experience of discovery, creativity, innovation,

emergence of meaning. Thus, it does not describe this phenomena from the outside
as a phenomenologist would, even though it is happening in his own consciousness.
The relation to the source of meaning generation is direct instead of indirect as it is
in hermeneutics. In hermeneutics one depends on other things from the
hermeneutic circle to give a clue to the significance of something new. In heuristics
328
one depends on one’s direct apprehension of the meaning of the novelty itself. The
moment of creativity is often described as a moment of synthesis, but in dialectics
that raising to an new level is seen as an external event, not as something one relates
to directly from within one’s own striving for understanding. In such moments,
deep structural changes may occur as with paradigm shifts. However, from
structuralism we get no hint of how those deep structural changes effect the
repatterning of consciousness directly. How can we pretend to understand
creativity, novelty, newness, emergence in our process philosophy if our own
methodology excludes it. So just as the pragmatists place the scientific method at
the center of experience, so we must place the experience of creativity at the center
of our methodology which will be used to understand creativity.
(4) Whereas phenomenology loses the persons in the process of descriptive analysis,
in heuristics the research participants remain visible in the examination of the data
and continue to be portrayed as whole persons.
Phenomenology, hermeneutics, dialectics and structuralism all lose the person who
is the experiencer. We might cry “back to the experiencer him/her self.” We have
gone back to the things and discovered that without the self we ultimately
misinterpret what the things are saying to us. Without the self in the hermeneutic
circle there is always a break in the spiral that can never be mended. Without the
self in the loop dialectics remain something which we are not sure actually ever
happens in experience. Without the self the deep structures, no matter how well
documented or clearly present, can never be seen as causal in any sense. They are
just interesting patterns that may have no relation to anything anyone ever
experiences.
Phenomenology ends with the essence of experience; heuristics retrains the essence
of the person in experience1.
If phenomenology ends with the essence of experience, and that essence is seen as
the persistent structures of consciousness, then we can see that structuralism is the
projection of those persistent structures outward. Hermeneutics then can be seen as
the opposite of dialectics. In hermeneutics we attempt to move from the forms with
content that appears within structured experience toward meanings sustained by the
interrelations of those phenomena that are showing themselves. With dialectics one
is attempting to move toward a greater synthesis outwardly. The realization of
meaning inwardly and the outward synthesis are both projections. One is a
1. (Douglass and Moustakas 1985 p43)
329
projection based on the hermeneutic circle, whereas the other is a projection based
on the interrelation of thesis and antithesis. These projections tend to fall back on
themselves. In fact, the missing element in all this is the self which was excluded
on purpose. The self is the basis for the projection of the synthesis of the dialectic
and of the meaning from the hermeneutic circle. The self is the one who lives
within the structures of consciousness and society in which intersubjective deep
structures are propagated. The self is the key element which has been forgotten by
the great methods which have driven philosophy in this century. Heuristic research
steps into the midst of this fourfold set of methods and gives them sudden life. So it
is not a matter of forgetting them, but of adding to them their lost center. Heuristic
research provides access to that lost center. It goes full circle and declares that all
methods that forget the self are ultimately “non-scientific” because the self cannot
ultimately be separated from the object of study. To study means to have a self in
action focusing on the object and querying it. No self, no study, so no science.
Heuristic research finally gives a complete picture of what science should be.
Combined with the other methods which allow distancing, heuristic research gives
the missing element that completes the set. Heuristic research is a new method that
will allow us to pursue emergent systems process philosophy with new vigor, and
hopefully new insights, that have been lacking hither to because our set of methods
was not complete.
Heuristic research as presented by Clark Moustakas is really a constellation of

related methods for “getting close” to a particular facet of human experience. One
lives the experience, and one participates with others living the experience as well
as performing a variety of other research techniques which are secondary to the
experience but focused on it. The methods are really just a catalogue of things
which have been found to work, and any ethical method may be used which allows
one to more fully “get at” the experience. This list includes the following methods:
• Identifying with the focus of inquiry
Here one imagines what it is like to be the thing under investigation.
• Self-dialogue
Here one has a dialogue with oneself about the experience or a imaginary dia-
logue with the phenomena itself.
• Tacit knowing
Here one allows all one knows but cannot express to come into play in attempt-
ing to understand the experience.
• Intuition
330
Here one uses ones intuition in a directed fashion to understand the focus of in-
vestigation.
• Indwelling
Here one concentrates one staying with the experience itself and dwelling in it to
understand it.
• Focusing
Here one allows one’s unconscious to come into play with the experience.
• The Internal Frame of Reference
Here one allows one’s personal view of the world to interact with the object.
Likewise heuristic research has several specific phases that one goes through to
reach understanding of some experience.
• Initial Engagement
Here the question being asked is formulated as precisely as possible.
• Immersion
Here one attempts to immerse oneself totally in the experience and attempt to un-
derstand it by whatever means possible which is ethically correct.
• Incubation
Here one switches away from the focus of research on purpose to allow one’s en-
counter with the experience to gel by making use of the unconscious processes.
• Illumination
“The illumination as such is a breakthrough into conscious awareness of qualities
and a clustering of qualities into themes inherent in the question” (p29)
• Explication
In explication one attempts to capture and examine what has been brought to con-
sciousness by the illumination.
• Creative Synthesis
In this process one attempts to express as a creative unity the whole of what one
has learned about the experience.
• The Validation of Heuristic Research
Here one attempts to test one’s expression of the experience in the intersubjective
context.
It is clear that this research methodology is totally opposed to distancing of the
331
subject of investigation. Here the investigator prizes not his detachment, but
instead his total immersion in the focus of his concern. It has been said many times
that the “subject” is “subjected” to and subjects the object. Subject is used for both
the seeker and what is sought. In scientific investigation both the seeker and the
sought are subjugated to the rigors of detachment. In heuristic research these bonds
are broken. Instead of distrusting ourselves, we begin to trust ourselves. We allow
ourselves to become one with the focus of investigation. Both we and it break the
bonds of detachment and subjugation. Instead we become pro-active in our seeking
and attempt to throw ourselves into it fully in order to get the most we can out of the
experience. Instead of being thrown, we throw ourselves completely into the focus
of our investigation. The word “heuristic” is used because its Greek root means to
discover or find. If we throw ourselves into our research completely, then we are
most likely to find or discover whatever lies in the inner depths of that experience.
This is, of course, how anyone discovers things. They throw themselves into some
question completely until they understand it. That understanding may come from a
myriad of directions, but unless you are focused on the problem sufficiently, you
would never recognize them when they appeared. Heuristic research is, in fact,
what all researchers do in a haphazard fashion already. Everyone who has ever
attempted to understand something to any depth knows that this can only be done
by throwing oneself completely into it. All the talk about distancing is really a
charade which allows us to maintain our illusion of objectivity. It is quite clear that
one’s findings, once found, must be presented in such a way that hides the process
of discovery. The results are presented as if they were logically deducted. Method,
in fact, means “meta-hodos,” or the way after; methods are merely a matter of
paving the way for others to follow you. However, science constructs these
methods in such a way to appear as if the subject was distanced from the object of
investigation. In fact, if such distancing was in place, one would never discover
anything. Thus, the distancing can be treated as a sophistry because everyone
knows that total immersion is the only way to discover anything. The distancing is
only applied later when the results are presented. Those who are fooled by this
trickery and attempt to follow methods to discover things end up never discovering
anything and are conveniently sidetracked from the real work of science. As
Feyerabend says, in science the only method that works is “anything goes.” This
means that distancing is thrown out the window first.
We must be careful not to allow ourselves to be taken in by the sophistry of science

and believe that heuristic methods such as those outlined above are in some sense
332
“unscientific.” The scientists do not really know what their own methods are. They
just keep trying things until they get some result that they can present. What
becomes clear is that there is an essential relation between the methods of
distancing and the complementary method of immersion. And taken as a whole, we
can see that by adding immersion to the set we transform the methods of distancing.
So we need to reconsider each of the distancing methods from the point of view of
immersion. And that will give us a new methodological perspective from which to
undertake our philosophical studies.
When heuristic research is added to phenomenology, then the descriptions of

consciousness become “my” own consciousness as a historical being. Already with
Sartre’s critique of phenomenology through the development of existentialism, this
historical grounding of phenomenological studies has been made an issue. Thus,
heuristic research merely extends trends that are already under development.
However, heuristic research still adds something to phenomenological
existentialism by making consciousness pro-active. Phenomenology and
existentialism tend to treat consciousness as if it were passive. Instead, heuristic
research would treat consciousness as in the act of total immersion in an inquiry.
The structures of consciousness in the act of discovery may not be the same as those
of the passive consciousness of everyday life and existence.
When heuristic research is added to hermeneutics, then one is suddenly allowed to

grasp the phenomena as a single unique thing unrelated to the other things in the
hermeneutic circle. The uniqueness of the focus of inquiry is allowed to find full
expression. We would like to call this uniqueness the “integra.” Just as Husserl
discovered eidetic intuition, or the direct perception of essences, regardless of
induction or deduction, so here there is also the direct perception of the unique
entity which goes beyond the essence. George Leonard in the SILENT PULSE has
explored this area in some detail. The perceived thing has a wholeness and a
position in the universe all its own. Just as Husserl freed us from thinking every
essence must partake in induction or deduction to be related to an idea, so heuristic
research frees us from the delusion that there is nothing in a thing beyond its
essence that it shares with all things of the same kind. In fact, each thing is imbued
with a myriad of specific details that make it unique. Total immersion allows one to
become immersed in those details and enters into that realm of specificity
completely in order to learn more than can be learned at the level of differentiating
kinds. The integra is the whole thing in all it’s myriad of detail which has a specific
place in the universe. The integra expresses that integral nature of the myriad
333
specific details and how they fit into the context of the universe in a specific place.
Heuristic research binds together the spiral of the hermeneutic circle and allows the
focus of inquiry to speak to us directly in its specificity beyond its relations to other
things.
When heuristic research is added to structuralism, then we see what intersubjective

constraints really have some effect in our lives. Deep structures, which normally
remain unconscious, when focused on either, do or do not appear. If they do not
appear, then they may be neat intellectual ideas but perhaps have no impact on
experience. Heuristic research uses the unconscious actively to attempt to
understand experiences. It uses both the individual unconscious (id) and the
collective unconscious in any way it can to get a total picture of the phenomena.
Structural analyses can feed this process, and heuristic research would seek to bring
to consciousness as much as possible concerning the focus of research. In that
process if the patterns show some features of deep structural patterning, these would
be recognized. However, if the patterning has no effects at all in consciousness, we
can easily doubt whether they are of importance at all.
When heuristic research is added to dialectics, then we see that heuristics attempts
to experience the synthetic movement of the dialectic. Thus, the dialectic is no
longer an external thing but an active process of personal integration in the sense of
Jungian psychology. As such, the dialectical dialectics of Sartre and the negative
dialectics of Adorno attempt to take round about routes to get at dialectical
phenomena; with heuristic research the dialectical phenomena can be brought into
play directly. Dialectical synthesis is either experienced directly or not. If not, then
they have no place in human affairs. But if creative synthesis happens, then it can
be understood through a living embodiment of the dialectic.
Now this series of methods taken together is the basis for examining the question
which Nicholas Rescher set before us of whether it is possible to develop a robust
process philosophy. Under the auspices of heuristic research this process becomes
our own process. We expect the process philosophy to be presented from the point
of view of all four of the distancing methodologies as well. But the center of our
work will be to develop a process philosophy that is directly related to our self
without distancing. This brings us to the important point of considering ontology.
Process philosophy in the past entered into a similar type of distancing, considering
processes to be the fundamental entities in some materialist sense. So instead we
will establish the distinction between “primary process” which is manifestation and
334
“secondary processes” that appear as vortices within manifestation. Primary

process is the subject matter of ontology. Heuristic research demands that I
consider that manifestation process in relation to myself. Thus, I will look at the
upwelling of manifestation in myself first as the starting point of my research. Then
I will use the other distancing methodologies in order to stabilize my own inner
work on the issue of upwelling manifestation. Heuristic research must function as a
figure on the ground of the distancing methodologies. They exist in a gestalt. At
times the distancing methodologies need to be brought to the fore, and heuristic
research becomes part of the background in the gestalt. But in our application of
heuristic research it is always part of the methodological equation. In this
development of heuristic research it is always grounded in the distancing methods.
Thus the self does not become narcissistically the center of attention, but it is
always there, and never intentionally excluded.
So in the application of this methodology to the problem of the construction of an

emergent systems process philosophy, we will focus on primary process, i.e.. the
process of manifestation. And our fundamental question will be, “How do new
things come into existence?” This question will organize all our thoughts about
philosophy. Coming into existence is obviously a process. It is, in fact, the process
of emergence which was first focused on by G.H. Mead in his key book THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE PRESENT. Things do not come into existence in
isolation. The new thing is part of the system that it emerges into and changes.
Thus, emergent events are intimately related to the systems they effect and are part
of a meta-system which encompasses the evolution of the system under
consideration. Thus, new things coming into existence is always both a test of and
an illumination of the systemic aspects of things. This question also is very
philosophical because it goes right to the core of our worldview which, unlike many
traditional worldviews both past and present, thrives on change. In a recent public
television series and book by James Burke called THE DAY THE UNIVERSE
CHANGED this aspect of our worldview was explored in detail. We thrive on
change, and it defines our character more than any other single aspect of our
culture. But there are very few philosophical treatments of how it is possible for
new things to come into existence. A process philosophy must treat this question
above all others because the process of new things coming into existence is the
fundamental process upon which all other processes are based, as all processes must
have come into existence at one time or another in order to be in existence to be
discovered there as an aspect of the universe.
335
So in this series of essays the fundamental question will be how new things come
into existence. This will be the focus of our heuristic research project. We will
apply phenomenological, hermeneutic, dialectical, and structural methods as well.
We will relate these through a study in semiotics of the new thing. But
fundamentally all these methods will be guided by the core of heuristic research that
gives these other methods coherence and a new aspect. Given the availability of
this new approach toward phenomena, there is an auspicious beginning to our
project of discovering how new things come into existence because we are applying
a new method, and in that method the focus is on discovery and finding. Thus, the
methodology and the focus project are in alignment. We are doing what we say,
which is a fundamental prerequisite of theorizing from the point of view of
reflective theorists1 who say a theory should always do what it says. Our
theoretical approach is to practice heuristic research, which is geared for discovery,
in order to approach the phenomena of discovery as an aspect of experience in
which I myself am engaged. I want to discover the structures of consciousness that
constrain new phenomena; I want to discover the meaning of new phenomena; I
want to discover the deep structures that appear in the process of unfolding of all
new phenomena; I want to discover the part/whole relationships and how they
change in the process of emergence occurring between the system that the emergent
event enters and the event itself. But most of all I want to find out what this all
means to me. I am an inheritor of my worldview. In that worldview drastic
changes are rampant. I am constantly being challenged by these fundamental
changes. Each of us are in this position in which I find myself. So that if I, and
others, confront this fundamental process of change in our worldview, then perhaps
we will find some answers to why things are like this and how it works, which will
allow others to learn to understand and cope with the onslaught of change. What
heuristic research posits is that if different groups of us focus in on an aspect of
experience and totally immerse ourselves in that experience, then what we discover
together will be accessible to others and help them better deal with that aspect of
experience.
This research needs to be intersubjective. Science has left the age of the single
discoverer. Now scientific papers have many authors. Science has entered the age
of group discovery where everyone contributes their own insight and expertise
toward a common goal, and no one person, except in rare circumstances, has
enough knowledge to do it all by himself. So too, in philosophy, it is group work
1. See THEORIZING by Alan Blum
336
that is the key to expanding our horizons. It is this realization that keeps heuristic
research from being merely subjective. It is fundamentally intersubjective. And
this is the new horizon for philosophy, in general, to follow physical science toward
a new future were we no longer have philosophy schools, but instead, philosophy
groups which ideally have open-ended agendas for working together to produce a
common philosophical perspective.
Heuristic research is really just a way of pursuing a quest. Here my quest is (and
has been for many years) the attempt to understand how new things come into
existence. Heuristic research gives me a way to work through this problematic in a
way that does not distort it any more than it is already distorted by my own self.
That is why this series of working papers, where the goal is not “know until it is
achieved” is the correct approach. In exploring, we enter into a new territory not
knowing which way to go or what will be found along the way. However, we know
that we seek a diagram of our own worldview which is comprehensive and gives us
insight into its distortions of what will be called primary process. Once these
distortions have been understood and the relation to other key worldviews
delineated, then it would be possible to embark on a systematic account like
Nicholas Rescher demands of us. To set out now to develop that systematic
exposition would assume that we knew the limits of the territory completely. Is it
not the territory we have all been living in since the beginning of the metaphysical
era? Isn’t Emergent Systems Process philosophy just one philosophy among others
within the metaphysical era? If the answer is “no,” then we must keep searching
until we find out how this new philosophy itself emerges to become a system within
our Western worldview.
5.3.2. PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY PROCESS
Primary process is manifestation or presencing of whatever appears. This is

distinguished from all secondary processes which appear within manifestation.
Manifestation is a maelstrom of emanation within which observer and observed
alike are caught. All individual processes are somehow differentiated within this
maelstrom of presencing. Primary process has these characteristics:
• Overwhelming: Every “thing” is caught in presencing and manifestation and is completely
caught up in it.
• Intersubjective: All consciousnesses (of our own and all other species) are caught in the web
of presencing. Our awareness of each other is though the medium of manifestation.
• All Embracing: All phenomena appear through and within manifestation and presencing,
whether tied to specific things or not.
337
• Differentiated: Presencing of phenomena contains a myriad of differences beyond all reckon-

ing.
• Kindness: Differences congeal and conspire to reveal natural complexes or kinds of things. It
is not in any sense a pure plenum, but a multifarious cornucopia of continually emerging phe-
nomena.
• Aspectival: Every kind has myriad aspects which interlock with the aspects of other kinds to
form a natural landscape which is orientable and navigable with internal and external coherenc-
es.
• Unfathomable Depth: The extent of manifestation is unknowable and unknown. As far as
you go within a horizon of exploration, there is always more phenomena revealed.
• Wondrous: Presencing and manifestation is an epiphany of meanings, intentions, expressions,
discoveries, vistas, landscapes, states, sensoriums and various other incredible impacts on our
experience which engages us utterly in the process of its unfolding.
Primary process appears before all theoretical distinctions such as between subject/
object, self/world, mind/body, idea/matter, idealistic/empirical, etc. J.G. Ballard
calls it the “archaic.” We discover ourselves in it before we differentiate ourselves
from it. We are lost within it before we find ourselves. Distinguishing ourselves
and other things within primary process is an ability that arises from the primary
process itself as one of its own aspects. But eventually we use that aspect to
distinguish ourselves from that in which we are immersed. So by continuously
distinguishing, we begin to make theoretical and practical distinctions which allow
us to build a world and a designated reality to inhabit. By distinguishing, one
begins to isolate sub-processes or secondary processes within the primary process.
This isolation of secondary processes comes from us using the ability to distinguish
we find already differentiated within primary process. Secondary processes have
the following characteristics:
• Bounded: Secondary processes are distinguished from other secondary processes by either
fuzzy or sharp lines of demarcation.
• Transforming: Secondary processes normally perform a transformation which sustains differ-
ences between kinds.
• Active: Secondary processes normally align with aspects in a behavioral confluence. In this
way distinct auto-poetic secondary processes form vortices within primary process.
• Hierarchical: Secondary processes are made up of sub-processes which are in turn made up
of lower level sub-sub-processes on down to lower and lower levels of differentiation.
• Autopoietic: Secondary processes are self-generating, evolving, dynamically self-maintaining
nexuses of activities.
• Unreified: Secondary processes are reified into “things,” “entities,” “objects,” and other mat-
ters that are described in terms of nouns which are divorced from their active aspect and which
are frozen in the process of manifestation. But secondary processes themselves are not reified
and continue to be isolateable but active and evolving.
338
Secondary processes may be distinguished from tertiary processes which are not
autopoietic and have imposed boundaries rather than existing as natural complexes.
Tertiary processes have the following characteristics:
• Artificial Boundaries: Their outlines are imposed instead of self maintained.
• Entropic: They disperse without constant maintenance.
• Intrinsically Inactive or Set in Motion: They must be set in motion and guided or remain in-
active. Any life they have is not their own, but borrowed from secondary processes.
• Reified: They come into existence by the process of reification.
• Limited: Have limited aspects and kinds associated with them.
Distinguishing these three levels of process is possible on the basis of innate

capacities within primary process. Distinguishing within each of these levels is also
done solely on the basis of capabilities taken over and refined from what is
available within primary process. So secondary and tertiary process are embedded
within primary process and feed off of its energy and vitality. Primary process
forms a ground out of which secondary processes arise as identifiable vortices from
which tertiary processes spin off and reify as partial representations of the activity
of secondary processes. No representations of primary process are possible.
Primary process is too magnificent in both scope and content to be captured except
by reference.
Attempts to represent primary process are called “primal scenes.”1 A primal scene
attempts to portray the “always already lost” origins of some secondary process or
of all secondary processes. The arising out of the ground of the primary process, or
the return to that ground, may be pictured by a primal scene. The primal scene
attempts to picture the non-representable nature of the embededness of the
secondary process in the primary process.
The major example of primary process is the pluriverse in which we find ourselves
made up of possibly parallel universes along with the intrinsic connection that
pluriverse has with our combined consciousnesses. All secondary and tertiary
processes are embedded in primary process and ultimately indistinguishable from it.
All distinctions from primary processes are tentative and not necessarily defensible.
From some perspective the secondary or tertiary processes are still fully embedded
and indistinguishable from the primary process.
1.See PRIMAL SCENES Lukacher (Cornell U.P. 1986)
339
The major example of a secondary process is a living organism. The living

organism is the key example of an active self-generating autopoietic negentropic
vortex within manifestation. As Nicholas Rescher1 says, our concept of “system”
stems almost entirely from the distinguishing of kinds of organisms within our
environment which have all the aspects of life and many of the aspects of
consciousness in common. The universe can be seen as a secondary phenomenon
when viewed as just one within a pluriverse of multiple parallel universes. In this
sense each universe is a secondary phenomenon. However, since we only directly
experience the nexus of universes in which we exist, those other universes become
theoretical. Thus, some secondary processes only appear so from a theoretical
viewpoint. The major secondary processes can be distinguished practically as well
as theoretically. To the extent a secondary process is not practical, is the same
extent that it is still not fully distinguished from its grounding in primary process.
The major example of a tertiary process is all the artificial things that animals,
especially, men create and produce. All the artificial aspects of the world we live in
are covered by this category of existence. But in nature there are many tertiary
phenomena as well, such as bird’s nests and woodpecker holes. However, many
natural phenomena may be seen as tertiary phenomena; for instance, any
phenomenon that is the result of an active process which ceased to be acting upon it.
So from this point of view the universe can be seen as a tertiary process in as much
as it was produced perhaps by the Big Bang. At our scale of timespace relations the
Big Bang is no longer a factor in our perception of natural phenomena. It is for us
as if the process of the Big Bang has stopped acting. For instance, a mountain range
may have been produced by volcanos, but the volcanos have long since become
inactive so that the mountains appear to us divorced of their generating secondary
processes. This view of the tertiary is always somewhat arbitrary, depending as do
all tertiary distinctions, on arbitrary demarcations.
Emergent Worlds, or Emergent Systems Process, philosophy is really an attempt to

understand secondary processes as they are embedded within primary process. It
attempts to eschew the appearances of tertiary process which cover over the
appreciation of the role of secondary process. Secondary processes are emergent.
Many aspects only apply to some kinds of secondary processes and not others. So
life and consciousness are aspects of some secondary processes called organisms.
They appear based on a foundation of other types of phenomena with other aspects
1.See COGNATIVE SYSTEMATIZATION
340
and bring some novel properties which do not exist at the level of things that can be
fully explained in terms of physics and chemistry. Not only do secondary processes
have novel aspects, but they themselves appear emergent to the extent that they
come into existence and go out of existence with those novel properties. Thus,
secondary phenomena all have some sort of surprise factor in the combination of
aspects in a particular kind which may reveal new aspects not seen before. Also,
since the highest form of secondary process is the organism which conditions all
our concepts of what makes up “systems,” then our view of secondary
manifestation must include a systems view of things. And since some organisms
have consciousness and intelligence, and other intangible characteristics, these two
must be factored into our view of secondary processes. However, we must realize
that not all secondary processes have these aspects, and we must not be guilty of
projecting these higher level aspects on all kinds of secondary processes. Also, we
will not forget that these higher order aspects are only a part of the full panoply of
Primary Process. As a philosophy we are attempting to view the middle stage
between primary and tertiary process, but without forgetting either of the other
types of processes. Primary process forms the context, ground, environment and
ecological complex within which all secondary processes appear. Tertiary process
is the means we have of making arbitrary distinctions within our own environment
and which ultimately allow us to identify secondary processes. Secondary
processes are the stable vortices within the primary process that allow us to
distinguish things as we ourselves are distinguished within primary process by
applying tertiary processes to ourselves.
Primary, secondary and tertiary processes work together to give a complete picture
of the field in which we are producing our Emergent Systems Philosophy. Unless
they are distinguished, yet kept clearly together because they belong together as the
SAME, then we are liable to lose our way before we really begin to create our new
systems process philosophy. If we lose the context of primary process, then we will
think that a description of independent secondary processes will do. Or worse yet,
we will be satisfied with a description of tertiary processes and their reifications.
Many processes philosophies fall into these traps. Instead we must continually see
how secondary processes are grounded in manifestation and presencing. We must
see how they are reified by tertiary spin-offs. Primary process is elucidated by
seeing within it secondary process manifestations. Secondary process is further
elucidated by seeing how it is reified by tertiary processes. In each case it is the
name for what is the same at all levels. Process implies that there is continual
change at all three levels. However, the nature of that change is different. There is
341
the change in presencing and manifestation. There are the emergent changes to
secondary processes as they come into and go out of existence. There is the non-
radical change of tertiary process which is like regulated flows within channels.
Secondary process vortices form those channels. The channels are like inversion
layers within the ocean that separate streams within the water, or like the jet stream
in the atmosphere. The difference between primary and secondary process is a
difference within primary process itself. This is to say it is a grounded difference,
but not an absolute difference, that would separate the phenomena irrevocably from
primary process. Tertiary processes are non-grounded differences. This means
they are arbitrary and imposed rather than following the contours of what is given.
With regard to our methodology, heuristic research, we can see that it is directed
exactly at understanding things through their immersion in primary process. As we
immerse ourselves and what we study in primary process, and delve into the
boundary between ourselves and the secondary process we are studying we get a
dose of complete immersion. All the distancing methods attempt to divorce
themselves from primary process in some way. Thus, they are methods that appear
at the level of secondary processes in order to study secondary processes.
Phenomenology attempts to look at the conscious aspects of our own organism as a
framework for seeing other secondary processes. Thus, we as secondary processes
are seen as a context for seeing all other secondary processes within the territory
mapped out by intentionality. Hermeneutics attempts to discover the meanings of
things by a process of comparison and delving into the whole field of related things.
Thus, the field of related meaningful secondary processes is seen as the arbiter of all
meaning. Dialectics sees the part/whole hierarchical relations between secondary
processes as the best means of understanding the process of unfolding of the whole
set of secondary processes. Structuralism sees the constraints within the field of
secondary processes which underwrite all its transformations as primary. In fact,
the characteristics of secondary processes are the starting point for the formulation
of all these distancing methods. Only heuristic research dips into primary process
itself where the subject and the object lose their distinguishability in order to come
to a deeper understanding of each of the secondary phenomena at the level at which
they are indistinguishable.
By placing manifestation at the heart of systems process philosophy, we construct a

bridge between process philosophy and critical theory on the one hand, and
fundamental ontology on the other. Instead of a philosophy lost in the mires of
English and American objectivism, we can draw upon the insights of modern
342
continental philosophy in order to overcome the basic limitations of objectivist

process philosophy. We take process philosophy that normally only deals with
secondary processes back to its ground in primary process. In so doing we make
available the basic structures of manifestation discovered by fundamental ontology
for a deeper understanding of process that hither to was available. We also make
available the insights of the critical theorists who through the use of dialectics,
rather than phenomenology and hermeneutics, went back to Hegel for the basis of
their insights into secondary phenomena. Structuralism existed as a safe haven for
those caught in the crossfire between the proponents of fundamental ontology and
critical theory. It too has rendered available certain insights that should not be lost
in our attempt to rebuild process philosophy from the ground up. The emergent
systems process philosophy arises out of primary process as presencing and
manifestation to understand the emergent and systemic aspects of secondary
processes. It uses heuristic research as the means of searching within the realm of
primary process, and in relation to the distinction between primary and secondary
process while it borrows insights from phenomenology, hermeneutics,
structuralism, and dialectics for the study of secondary processes in their own right.
It uses semiotics as the means of comprehending the import of tertiary processes.
Tertiary processes are always signs pointing at secondary processes, and secondary
processes, in turn, point toward the primary process. The semiotic of the primary
process is always in terms of the construction and adumbration of the primal scene.
5.4. Philosophical Categories
Once we have understood the difference between Primary and Secondary process it
is possible to begin to explore the category system that differentiates out of the
nexus of primary process. Categories are our most general concepts. It appears that
these most general concepts have some internal differentiation from each other that
gives us some idea of the minimal set of concepts necessary to think about
secondary processes. Beyond that differentiation we have what Loy calls Non-
Duality of perception, thought, and action. We must begin at the point where the
first differentiation occurs of concepts into different kinds in order to begin
discursive thought about secondary process we find arising out of primary process.
Here we will use the Category Theory of Igvar Johannson who produces a full
fledged theory of Categories instead of just giving tables as is traditional with
Aristotle and Kant. Jonannson is the first ontologist to make a full fledged attempt
to produce an intersubjective ontology which encompasses all of the emergent
phenomenological levels. As the first real attempt we appreciate his valiant effort
even if we do not wholly agree with his ontology. He must be praised in his attempt
343
to unify the physical and human sciences and account for the relation between the
relation between the subjective and intersubjective. He produces what he calls a
level ontology which explains the relation between the phenomenal emergent levels
very well. He also sharpens considerably our conceptual and categorical
vocabulary as well as explaining the relation between many categories in relation to
space and time. However, his ontology has is on the whole dissatisfying because it
lacks an architectonic which is readily graspable. He has patterned it off of
Husserl’s Logical Investigations so that it stands a a series of in-depth studies that
does not produce an overall theoretical structure. Throughout he speaks of his
position in relation to the positions of others rather than attempting to produce a
synthesis which might be intersubjectively agreed upon as a foundation for an
intersubjective ontological perspective.
Kant introduced the concept of an architectonic into philosophy. His philosophy

had a structure with a definite aesthetic appeal that structure allows us to appreciate
the connection between the different aspects of his philosophical system instead of
being confronted by each aspect separately and having to piece together the
structure for our selves. In Johannson’s ontology we are confronted with a
workshop with many tools laid aside by workmen in the midst of their work where
the structure they are building is not yet apparent. We must not concentrate on the
fact that the building is not yet constructed but be pleased that the tools are already
at hand for the work to be completed. We will take it upon ourselves to produce an
architectonic which has aesthetic appeal but is also functional using the fine tools
we have been provided. We will now discuss some of these tools in order to get
some idea of what we have to work with when we enter the shop where Johannson
has been busy with his investigations. Johannson leaves us an interesting set of
categories to work with.
5.4.1. CATEGORIES
5.4.1.1. Space-time
For Jonannson container spacetime is a fundamental category. He differentiates

this from relational space. For him relational space is a straw dog thrown into his
argument to differentiate his container space which is relativistic. He makes five
claims about container space.
5.4.1.1.1. For our world, each possible ontology has to rely on a container space.
Johannson takes a position against relational views of space in favor of container
344
views of space.
5.4.1.1.2. No development within physics is in conflict with the category of container space.
He wishes to make sure his ontology can be seen as a basis for physical theories.
This is of course a desired outcome but should not be seen in any way as a
prerequisite. Physics has been wrong before about the nature of space and time and
they may be so now although the chances of that are probably becoming smaller all
the time. However, there are some very interesting theories of the nature of space
that does not see it merely as a container but as a soup of the creation and
destruction of opposite particles. So we can postulate that perhaps the concept of
container is too passive and misses the active dimension of primary process when it
is visualized as the spacetime matrix.
5.4.1.1.3. Container space is a necessary condition for external spatial relations; consequently ex-
ternal spatial relations function as criteria for container space.
Container space is in essence the externality of the individual. Through it the

individual has external relations with other individuals or itself. It is the place of
embodiment and as such is crucial to the concept of autopoietic systems that must
be embodied in a space. It is because space can be viewed as a container that the
autopoietic system can be seen as constructing its boundary within spacetime to
differentiate it from the outside world. The autopoietic system defines the
difference between self and other within its container space. The autopoietic
system does so not to establish relations with other things but in order to look
inward. The autopoietic system defines its interiority in relation to these external
relations. Thus we can see that the external relations of the container space is
opposite the interiority defined by the autopoietic system living within the container
space.
5.4.1.1.4. Container space functions as a principle of individuation.
This is the key point about spacetime. It functions as the means for locating
different instances of some kind. Without spacetime there would be no
individuation of instances and thus no embodiment. Spacetime in some sense
produces the differences between universals and the subjects that bear universals by
making these subjects into individual instances. The individuals are engulfed by
the spacetime matrix itself and via it enmeshed in a web of relations with everything
else that exists in spacetime. They bear the properties which connect them to their
kind as well as those so called accidental ones that are unique to them extrinsic to
345
their kindness. Spacetime bears the things that inhabit it as warpages to its
apparently smooth structure. The individual is grasped by spacetime through forces
that act upon it as a physical body. Within spacetime the individual is able to grasp
other things and thus come into bodily contact with them and manipulate them.
Also spacetime appears as a an illusory continuity in which everything is purely
present. Within spacetime the individuals existence also appears continuous. All
the relations between the individual and spacetime are versions of the modalities of
the humans perception of things in the world and correspond to the modalities of
Being.
Table 5: Psychological Aspects of the meta-levels of Being
Being1 present-at-hand pointing

2
Being ready-to-hand grasping
3
Being in-hand bearing
Being4 out-of-hand encompassing
If we see that part of the relation of the individual to spacetime is reenacts the
relation between all things and fragmented Being then we see how spacetime is a
way of looking at manifestation, a way of reifying it and rendering it objective.
This means seeing the containers of everything as being a kind of pure distancing.
By projecting distancing over everything and attempting to produce a pure plenum
of availability a reification occurs both in our conception of spacetime and our
conception of the individuals that inhabit spacetime. All those beings are rendered
present at hand. But in that process all the other aspects of fragmented being are
embodied implicitly through the relation of the individual with spacetime and
through the individuals with other individuals caught in the arena of pure
distancing.
The only way to get beyond this view is to look at the fact that our real relation to
spacetime is through the mediation of our body schema within the lifeworld. One
of the things that become clear when we switch from our imagination of space to
our actual perceptions is that space is horizontal and hyperbolic1. We are fixed by
our conception of the vanishing point2 within a flat Euclidean space. But our actual
connection with spacetime through the lifeworld and our own body image is much
more dynamic and multifaceted than our imaginations of a pure plenum of space
and time.
1.Patrick A. Heelan Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science. (Berkeley: U. of Calif. Press. 1983)
2.Signifying Nothing
346
5.4.1.1.5. Some ‘properties’ of things (enantiomorphic properties) are necessarily relations be-
tween the things an container space.1
Johannson mentions enantiomorphic properties as ones that show the relation

between things and space. But generally we should remember that all symmetry
group operations are important in the respect that they maintain the orientation in
space so that things remain the same after the operation. As such we can say that
group operations relate space to the individual in space because they differentiate
the possible transformation of the individual in space according to its own spatial
shape and it returns the individual to the same orientation which sets up a reference
in relation to spatial coordinates emanating from the thing itself. Enantiomorphic
properties of things are special in that the turning inside out to produce the mirror
image is a symmetry operation that relates the three dimensional thing to four
dimensionality. In other words in a four dimensional space things can rotate into
their mirror images without turning inside out. Enantiomorphism establishes the
relation between the matrix of four-dimensional spacetime and our three
dimensional representations of it.
By taking a position Johannson misses the possibility of connecting the container

space to relational space and deriving the difference between Spacetime and
Timespace. Spacetime is relativistic container space. But Johannson does not
really consider Minkowoski2 who has conceptualized spacetime in a completely
different way from Einstein. Instead Minkowoski concentrates on relations of
causality and produces a view of spacetime that emphasizes the flow of time and the
actions of causality within time rather than the container aspect. Rather than seeing
time as the three spatial dimensions minus time Minkowsik sees time as the
subtracted moments within light cones past-present-future plus nowhere, the place
outside the lightcones.
Thus instead of taking a position that space must be a container rather than mere
relations we will recognize that there are two views of spacetime the other non-
container view being called timespace. Both views see the same thing, the
underlying spacetime/timespace matrix in different ways that are useful for
different purposes. Like the wave/particle duality there is a spacetime/timespace
duality. Also there is a duality between continuous and discrete views of the
matrix. We can never see the matrix itself but only representations of it either as a
1.Categorical Investigations page 160

2.He is mentioned in passing as not contradicting Johannson’s theory.
347
container or as relations. We never know if it is continuous or granular or whether

objects are merely perturbations of spacetime or are actually differentiated from
spacetime within it. The Matrix is not a category because strictly speaking it is a
way of looking at primary process. Only spacetime or timespace can be seen as
categories because they are representations by which the human deals with the
bewildering nature of the place it finds itself dwelling.
5.4.1.2. State of affairs
Johannson has a interesting conception of things that occur individuated in

spacetime. He calls these things “states of affairs.” A state of affairs is composed
of substance and property. The set of substances and properties at any one
ontological level may completely different from those on the other levels.
Substances and properties cannot have independent existence. Thus for Johannson
anything that has existence as a state of affairs must be complex and not simple.
The primitives in Johannson’s ontology are not simples, and this is a key insight
that he brings to ontology. Ontologists are normally attempting to find a set of
primitives with which to furnish the world and build other more complex structures
that we normally deal with. Johannson realizes that everything that manifests is
already complex and that this is a condition of manifestation. For him there are two
completely different aspects or moments to every state of affairs. The substance is
that which bears the properties. There may be multiple properties associated with
every substance. But substances and properties are mutually dependent as well as
properties being mutually dependent among themselves. He gives the example of a
commodity and a price. Both the commodity substance and its property of price
entail each other. You cannot have a commodity with no price nor a price without a
commodity to attach itself to. Commodities may of course have many properties
that are all mutually dependent.
Another key point that Johannson makes is the difference between a substance and
a substratum. A substance exists at a particular ontological level. But besides the
substance at that level there may also be dependence on another state of affairs at a
lower ontological level. This state of affairs upon which another state of affairs at a
higher level is called the substratum. The substratum is always a state of affairs, a
substance and property configuration. This difference between substance and
substratum is a key point that when not distinguished leads to a lot of confusion.
Johannson deftly separates the two concepts:
348
The substratum as distinct from the substance, is always a state of affairs (i.e. not
merely an aspect of a state of affairs). Of course the substratum can in turn be
divided up into aspects of substance and property, but the latter substance or
substances belong to the underlying natural level.1
Figure 79:
(Substance <=> properties) = state of affairs4 ontological level 4
(Substance <=> properties) = state of affairs3 = substratum3 ontological level 3
Substratum0 ontological level 0
Johannson immediately brings up a problem with this structure which he does not
attempt to solve. This is the necessity of positing a Substratum zero. In physics this
is energy while for Aristotle it was prime matter. Any phenomenal ontological
hierarchy such as that which Johannson has this conceptual problem of the
ambivalence of the base substratum. This is one reason for formulating the
ontological emergent hierarchy as the dual to the phenomenal. Instead of having to
posit a level below the level of the most primitive which makes all transformations
possible we posit that primitives can go down to any level in our study of nature and
we posit instead the pluriverse at the top or our hierarchy which is the catchall
category, a kind of superstratum zero. Both of these hierarchies (phenomenal and
ontological) act as duals of each other one conceptual or idealistic and the other
materially based. Both bracket the primary process representing it in one case as
substratum zero and in the other superstratum zero from which all the other
substrata emanate. Idealistic ontological hierarchies descend from the superstratum
and material or phenomenal hierarchies ascend from the bottom. So that we can
ultimately see them as arising pairs of ladders ascending out of primary process
endeavoring to reach it again or descending from primary process endeavoring to
reach it again.
1.OI page 37
349
Figure 80:
Manifestation
Primary Process
Superstratum zero
Material Phenomenal Hierarchy

social pluriverse
Ideal Ontological Hierarchy

reaching
toward
reaching
toward
energy primitive
Substratum zero
Primary Process
Manifestation
5.4.1.3. Quality (substance/property)
Substance and property entail each other and give complexity to each of the
minimal things that appear at each level of the level ontology whether ideal or
materialist. Each of them is an aspect or moment of the state of affairs and as such
together make up its quality. Quantity derives from the countability and from
metric relations which occur primarily through the metrical nature of spacetime.
However as we shall see there are different kinds of metrical relations. However,
what we want to attend to at this point is the concept of minimal complexity at a
given ontological level. Buckminster fuller states that a system must have at least
four moments in order to appear. So the minimal system has a tetrahedral structure
when considered geometrically. This introduces a criteria not considered by
Johannson but we shall consider what it does in relation to his postulate that all
states of affairs are complex. The question here is what minimal complexity from
the point of view of manifestation. We know that from the point of view or
representation we can picture simpler systems than tetrahedra and for the most part
do that. But the question is from Buckminster Fuller’s pint of view whether these
representations of simpler structures are anything more than representations. In
order to connect with manifestation we need to produce the minimal structure that
three dimensional spacetime will allow and that is the tetrahedron. This is because
three dimensional space is the closest we get to the underlying four dimensional
matrix. When we build one or two dimensional representations we are in fact very
distant from the underlying structures of manifestation. What we want to do is
actually get as close as possible to the underlying four dimensional matrix and even
to hypothesize extensions to that minimal system that allows us to attempt to
350
represent the structure of the matrix itself beyond the wall of three dimensional
representation. One and two dimensional representations are distant from the
underling structures of manifestation. And though perhaps they are easier to
manipulate and think about they do not give us a good picture of minimal
complexity. They only give us a partial view of that minimal complexity over
simplifying it.
Now this concept of minimal complexity adds a great deal to the idea of Johannson
that whatever manifests must already be complex. It means that each thing must at
least have four properties related to a substance at an ontological level or must
relate four substances via a single property. If we view the minimal complexity as
four properties related to a single substance we get what might be called the
minimal kind. If we view it as four substances related to a single properties we get
a geometrical configuration of the tetrahedron. The tetrahedron is four points
(minimal substances) related by a single property (distance in space from each
other). Given this example we can see that substance/property together has a phase
structure and has the nature of an interval. Part of the interval is the culmination of
the properties into a single face or aspect. The other part has to do with
differentiation by attachment to universals which go beyond the substance to its
kind. Johannson makes an interesting point which he does not elaborate on. Which
is that substances have genus-species hierarchies of subsumption where you can tell
something about the species from the genus, whereas the subsumption of one
property to another does not tell you anything about the subsumed property. This
means that there is a trade-off between properties and substance. Substance
represents unity within the state of affairs while properties in relation to each
represent their internal diversity. But that diversity is directly related to universals
that go beyond the individual substance. The substance of a particular kind is a
pattern or coherence of properties that form a unity within the individual. That
pattern of properties connect to the properties of other individuals of the same and
other kinds. Individuals with a certain set of properties form a kind and are related
to higher kinds with similar sets of properties and coherences. So we get a strange
kind of relation between substance and property which has to do with the relation
between particular and universal. The substance is a particular individuated thing
but participates in the universal of kindness and maybe even higher subsumptive
relations with other higher level kinds. The property is a universal which connects
the substance with other like and unlike things. Where the substance unites the
properties into a unity related to the kind the properties may be orthogonal to each
other and do not necessarily inherent anything from whatever subsumes them. So
351
the properties represent discontinuities within the thing both in terms of their
relations to each other and their subsumptive relations. Substances represent unity
in the thing both because they are the point of coherence between the properties and
because they inherit those coherences through subsumptive relations.
Now when we talk about substances we need to be clear that Husserl’s analysis is
more detailed and insightful than that given by Johannson who is attempting to
follow in his footsteps but who has been influenced by analytic philosophy. If we
want to relate things to language all we need are substances. But if we are relating
things to perception the situation is more complex. Husserl differentiates in relation
to substance three different things. First there is the noematic nucleus which is the
actual coherence of properties in the individual. Second there is the Idea that is the
concept that unites the coherence of properties into a single unity. Between these
there is a discontinuity. Normally we think of breaching this discontinuity by
means of induction or deduction. However, one of these requires many individuals
and the other requires a preexisting concept which the noematic nucleus is tied to
arbitrarily. Husserl’s great insight is that there is a special kind of perception called
essence perception that allows us to immediately cross the bridge between noematic
nucleus and idea without either an arbitrary connection nor many individuals to
induct from the idea. Essence perception is our connection to kinds and allows us
to see directly the patterns of natural complexes. It is a dynamic that connects the
static center of the noematic nucleus to the idea that floats above it. It is very
important to understand essence perception because it is the central concept that the
whole phenomenological movement seized upon as the access to other modes of
being other than Pure Presence.
When we say that there is a minimal complexity which relates substance and
properties we are saying that the state of affairs is a nexus which relates unity and
diversity and that is done in such a way that there is a trade off between the unity of
the thing as a kind which gets represented as an idea which glosses over a coherence
of properties that may be orthogonal to each other and thus represent diversity. And
on the other hand there is the unity of properties as universals that connect diverse
things within experience and thus give unity to the whole of experience due to the
same properties allowing us to bridge between one individual of a kind and another
individual of a different kind. Properties are orthogonal but they give unity to the
whole of experience whereas substances give unity only to individuated kinds.
Here we see how experience is really a weaving of woof and warp. The woof is the
properties as universals that weave through the individuals. The warp is the kinds
352
that connect individuals by genus-species subsumptions. The subsumptions of

properties connect different orthogonal realms of experience. The individual state
of affairs is the point at which the warp and woof interfere with each other. The
state of affairs stands opposite to the whole of experience in which it appears. This
is the dimension that Johannson forgets even though he has read Husserl’s Logical
Investigations. Phenomenology does not forget this connection between the state of
affairs and the field of experience in which it is embedded. But what
Phenomenology does forget is that each of the things that appear in the field of
consciousness has a social dimension. Thus there is a difference between subjective
and intersubjective phenomenology. At least Johannson has not forgotten this
intersubjective aspect to existence. Thus between Husserl’s investigations and
those of Johannson there are definite trade-offs we must be aware of as we proceed.
5.4.1.4. Grounded and External relations
Both properties and substances may have relations among each other which are of
three types. The first of those types are internal which are “relations where it is
logically impossible for the relata to exist independently of each other.” This is the
kind of relation that property and substance have to each other in Johannson’s
ontology. These relations are internal to any given individual instantiated state of
affairs. But if we want to talk of relations between states of affairs we need other
concepts beyond what comes with the idea of the state of affairs itself. The first of
these is the grounded relation. It is of a kind of “relations where it is logically
possible for the relata to exist independently of each other along with another
category of relation called external. Grounded “relations are derivable from the
qualities of the relata.” This set of possible relations allow us to connect individuals
to other individuals in various degrees of dependence. Internal relations mean total
dependence of two things on each other. External and grounded relations allow
independence between things but grounded relations are bound up in the properties
of the things themselves whereas external relations are not only free of the
existential relation between individuals but also of the existential relations between
properties. The external relation is emergent in that it is a relation that has an
independence from both substance and properties. For instance relations between
individuals in space are external. Thus space gives us the limit of what externality
means. So there is a specific relation between the kinds of relations a thing can
have and its situatedness in pure externality of the spacetime container.
353
5.4.1.5. Existential dependence
Johannson speaks of this as really being a meta-category because it relates the

different categories to each other. I discuss it here because it builds on the different
kinds of relations he has defined. He takes the category of Existential dependence
from Husserl and differentiates it from internal dependence.
• D9.1 A is existentially dependent upon B if and only if it is logically impossible for A to exist
if B does not exist.
Existential dependence is contrast to internal relations. It turns out that all the
relations discussed in the last section were mutual. But Johannson and Husserl
claim that there are no one-way internal relations. However, this does not mean
there are not one-way internal dependencies. Thus Johannson abstracts the
dependency relations saying that existential dependency may be mutual or one-way.
All other relations mentioned (external, grounded, and internal) are mutual between
relata. Only existential dependence can be one-sided and so it comes to have a very
powerful effect on the whole of Johannson’s category theory because he posits that
categories and not just states of affairs or their aspects may be related through
existential dependence. He posits that this opens up new possibilities within
ontology which his ontological system takes advantage of and which converts his
category system into a unity through the relations of existential dependence
between categories. It is in fact what allows his category system to unfold the
different ontological levels which are related by one way existential dependence.
What existential dependence (or its inverse existential independence) allow is for
one orthogonal category to be related to the another without a reverse relation of
mutuality. This can produce a network of existentially dependent relations between
orthogonal elements. This network is very important because it gives us a means of
working with axioms which are orthogonal without having them all bound up in
either internal, grounded or external relations of mutuality. Consider Johannson’s
categories as such a set of axioms. He can allow his categories to partially interact
with each other so that higher ontological levels are dependent on lower ones
without the orthogonality between the levels being compromised. He says that
without existential dependence one is trapped either in idealism or holism. This is
because one either sees all relations as internal mutual relations of the mind or of
material things. But with the concept of existential dependence it is possible to
escape this mesh of mutual relations and posit one way relations that give
hierarchical order and thus allow something like a level ontology to be built. Due to
the set of existential dependencies he builds the he has only one category that is
354
absolutely independent and that is spacetime. All others are dependent on some
other category for their existence. States of affairs need spacetime. Substances and
Properties need states of affairs. They are mutually existentially dependent on each
other but one-sidedly existentially dependent on states of affairs which is in turn
one-sidedly dependent on spacetime.
The category of existential dependence is in itself both spaceless and timeless in the
sense that all specific relations to space and time have to come from the relata
related. Relata of existential dependence need not necessarily coincide in space and
time, even though this is often the case. Pitch and sound-intensity, to take one
example, are mutually dependent and occupy exactly the same place in space. They
are distinct but coincident. It is this feature which one should bear in mind when
thinking of irreductive materialism and its ontological levels. An overlying level is
distinct from but, in spite of this, coincident with its substratum. As I stressed in
chapter 2, ontological levels should never be pictured as geological strata or bricks
laid on top of each other. The levels coincide in space. The category of one-sided
existential dependence makes the ideo of something which is at one and the same
time both distinct and coincident absolutely clear. The concept of ‘ontological
level’ has in this way become a very well defined term.1
Table 6: a
A is state of
constituted affairs
by B =substance;
state of
affairs=prop
erty
A and B are
mutually
dependent
A and B are substance=pr
founded operty
upon each
other
A and B
have a
relation of
existential
dependence
A is state of
constituted affairs=subst
by B ratum
355
Table 6: a
A is one-
sidedly
dependent
upon B
A is founded state of
upon B affairs=space
; overlying
level=substra
tum
a.OI page 136
Johannson says something very significant after he defines this meta-category that
knits his system of categories together into a hierarchy. He then asks what he calls
the Bradley question: “What relates the relation of existential dependence to the
other categories in question?” And his answer is: “Nothing!” All that exists are the
categories in their relations of existential dependence. The infinite regress of
relations of relations is not generated in his opinion. This is significant because it
says that only one meta relation is related to knit together the category system
which gives it unity. Of course he then immediately goes on to differentiate all
sorts of kinds of existential dependence the most interesting of which is existential
exclusion which says that if A exists then B cannot exist. It turns out that existential
exclusion is a more interesting kind of relation but Johannson does not go on to
develop it. He is satisfied with a hierarchy. However, we are not satisfied with a
hierarchy and so wish to point out that a hierarchy is not the only form of system
that may be produced by the one and two way existential dependency. We recall
Deleuze in 1000 Plateaus talking about the arbor-centered view of the world which
he contrasts with the concept of rhizome or network. He uses the word plateau to
signify something similar to what Johannson calls levels. He specifically wishes us
to discard the whole concept of the hierarchy in favor of networks as we will recall
that Rescher posits that it is possible to found a formal system on a network of
mutually elucidating axioms instead of attempting to found it on completely
orthogonal axioms. We are reminded that an autopoietic system is a network as
well. It is a network that produces and organizes itself. Thus we can see that it is
possible to have a category or axiomatic system that is not a hierarchy as
Johannson’s has turned out to be but instead has either relations of existential
exclusion between axioms or relations of one-way existential dependence between
elements such that A is one-way dependent on B which is one-way dependent on C
1.OI page 135
356
which in turn is one-way dependent on A. This kind of structure is called in

Buddhism mutual dependent arising. There is in fact a hierarchy of kinds of
existential dependencies. First there is existential exclusion in which independent
axioms exclude each other. Second there is mutual dependent arising which forms
a ring such as the wheel of Samsara (life and death) in Buddhism. Third there are
relations of mutual existential dependencies which form very strong bonds between
relata. There are all the mutual relations which are not existential such as internal,
grounded, and external. Our ontology sees each of these stages as ways of looking
at states of affairs. The first one sees the appearance and disappearance of different
sets of states of affairs as one set comes on stage then another set vanishes from the
stage. This is the ground of manifestation itself: Showing and Hiding. The second
sees the fact that as some things appear other things follow and that these may form
circular rings which give us manifestation as the eternal recurrence of the Same.
This is still looking at manifestation. Forth is the mutual existential bonds which
only hold between things manifesting at the same time. This determines a specific
presentation within the showing and hiding dynamic. Fifth there is the trees of
existential dependence. They show us causal chains within a particular
presentation. But they trail off as we reach the leaves of the tree. They give us all
the relations that exist at each of our ontological levels or phenomenal levels
between things presented at the same time. Every thing else is produce by the
addition of internal, grounded and external relations at any given ontological level.
So we see that Johannson has opened the door for us to understand manifestation
but did not venture through that door himself. He merely pointed the way because
his ontology is built not to understand the dynamics of manifestation that is
dependent on existential exclusion and one-sided existential dependencies that form
rings or networks. He is instead only interested in the static ontology of the trees.
Thus his ontology is pre-Godelian in the sense that it believes in something which is
a ground upon which the entire edifice can be erected. However, we know that
there is only quicksand and that quicksand is manifestation itself. And it is amazing
that there are very precise ontological tools to conceptualize that quicksand. Those
are the tools of existential exclusion and networked or ringed oneway existential
dependencies. All other relations float on top of manifestation without actually
explicating the mechanism of manifestation itself. Hopefully we will use the keys
that Johannson has given us, perhaps unwittingly, to unlock a different brand of
level ontology based on these structures and that lends itself to conceptualizing a
different kind of architectonic that is not a tree but is embedded in the structure of
spacetime itself. The significance of spacetime is not questioned merely the way
the categories are architecturally connected. It does not in fact go deep enough into
357
the structure of spacetime and merely remains on its surface. If we are embedded in
spacetime then we would expect that everything that we need to know about what is
possible within spacetime is inscribed there. We need to learn to read those
inscriptions, or perhaps see what we have known for a long time about those
inscriptions in a new light.
Now with the conceptual tool of existential exclusion we can see how our hierarchy
of ontological levels is extended to include domains, worlds, universes, and the
pluriverse. Where the lower four levels (primitive, object, system, and meta-
system) are all about dependencies these upper levels are about exclusions. So in
our ontological hierarchy half of it emphasizes things that are dependent on each
other in some configuration while the other half concerns the dynamics of
manifestation produced by exclusions within the showing and hiding process.
Showing and hiding means that when one thing appears the other disappears. This
is precisely a relation of existential exclusion. Therefore we can see that domains
contain meta-systems, systems, objects and primitives of different types. But
domains are exclusive of each other. If you are in one domain it is very difficult to
operate with things from another domain. So it is with worlds which are collections
of domains. Worlds are even more exclusive. You can only have one worldview at
a time. With the universe, which is projected based on our worldview onto nature
there is the strongest exclusivity because we believe that there is only one physical
universe. But we realize that there may be many possible or parallel universes out
of which this one arises as an instantiation in which we are totally trapped from a
physical point of view. The realm of all the possible or parallel universes is the
pluriverse. It is in a sense the ultimate realm of excludedness. If we want to
understand primary process we must take into account existential exclusivity as a
fundamental component of the showing and hiding of manifestation.
Existential exclusivity allows us to give a strong and sound definition to our

different levels of Being. Pure Presence (Being0) is the real in which all existential
dependencies are hierarchical. When we project this on everything it produces the
illusion of continuity which makes everything available. When we see this
availability as a container in which things exist we get the container concept of
spacetime. When we move down to the level where there are circular or networks
of existential dependencies where showing and hiding first appears as extended
chains of showings then we realize that manifestation is a process and this is a
model of Process Being (Being1). At this level there are showing and hiding
processes operating but what we see are the showings in chains or rings of
358
existential dependence. When we move down yet another level we see that within
the chains and rings of showing and hiding there is some thing that is never shown,
that is purely immanent which Henry calls the Essence of Manifestation. This thing
which is never shown has a relation of existential exclusion with everything that
becomes manifest. This is seen in psychological terms as the Unconscious. Here is
where we first meet existential exclusivity as the necessity of pure immanence that
counterbalances pure transcendence of manifestation. The more robust conception
of manifestation is that it has depth and does not show us everything. Manifestation
in fact hides itself as it shows us everything else. This level of Being is called
Hyper Being by Merleau-Ponty and Being (crossed out) by Heidegger. It is called
Differance by Derrida. It appears to us as the personal unconscious. If we go down
another level we realize that exclusivity pervades all of manifestation. Showing and
Hiding does not just have one part which is never seen. In fact there are exclusive
relations between different rings and chains of existential dependencies. The point
at which one realizes that Exclusivity is diffuse throughout manifestation is called
by Merleau-Ponty Wild Being and by Deleuze and Guattari Schizophrenia. It is in
Anti-Oedipus posited that the essence of manifestation, called the body-without-
organs, has intensities. It’s zero intensity is the practico-inert, pure substance or
substratum zero. As the intensity of the body-without-organs increases one realizes
that diffused through out the socius is a fundamental level of schizophrenia or wild
variety production. That there is a fundamental level of what might be called a
cornucopia of forms unfolding into existence in wild abandon and profusion that is
normally repressed by society but which is an essential aspect of the socius. It is in
fact the aspect in which the social is1 emergent. The continuous production of
novelty is an upwelling of exclusivity because the genuinely emergent changes the
world into another world. It produces a direct experience of exclusivity which are
discontinuities in our ways of perceiving and thinking about the world based on the
appearance of genuinely novel things. When a person sees only this novelty
production which is the foundation of the social then we call that schizophrenia. It
is the obverse of the always already hidden Essence of Manifestation. It is the
always already present showing of existential exclusivity pervading all
manifestation. For Merleau-Ponty this was thought in terms of our immersion in
our bodies and perception and the opacity of these modes of embededness in the
world. He saw the exclusivity in the way we perceive through or body images
where we can see one thing but another. He illustrates this with the chiasm of touch
touching. There he posits that we cannot feel ourselves feeling. There is a
1.Here we use Derrida’s extension of Hiedegger’s crossing out of Being. See Of Grammatology.
359
fundamental reversibility at the base of our perception through our bodies that is the
foundation of manifestation. This produces realms of exclusivity mixed with
existential dependencies throughout our experience. These are two ways of
conceptualizing the same thing. Either it is the production of novelty as paradigms,
epistemes, or interpretations of Being that causes us to move from one exclusive
realm to another within which there are new relations of dependence or it is the
mixture of exclusivity and dependence within our embodied perceptual apparatus.
Both of these are ways of looking at the mixture of existential dependence and
exclusivity in manifestation.
Beneath all these layers which are in fact the meta-levels of Being sharply defined
there is a final realm of pure existential exclusivity in which we do not see things as
existentially dependent at all. This realm has been called Emptiness or the Void. It
is from the void that both Superstratum zero or Substratum zero arise. It is a realm
which we can see as either completely mutually existentially dependent or
completely existentially exclusive. If we see it as completely mutually existentially
dependent then we call it interpenetration. If we see it as completely existentially
exclusive we call it Emptiness or the Void. These are two ways of looking at the
same situation. We say that beyond the meta-levels of Being is the Void. We might
just for consistencies sake call it meta-level Being5 which is actually anti-Being.
But it is in fact the opposite of Being. This is the great discovery of the Buddha that
led to his enlightenment. He was part of the Indian branch of the Indo-European
tradition which like the Western philosophical tradition projected the subtle
clinging to existence we call Being. He discovered the antidote to Being in
Emptiness. Emptiness is a way of looking at everything that sees only existential
exclusion between everything. Since Manifestation is shot through with existential
exclusion it is possible to look at everything as if it were disconnected from
everything else through existential exclusivity. In the development of the
Mahayana tradition this understanding eventually changed into its opposite where
everything was seen as mutually existentially dependent as in the image of the
jewelled net of Indra.1 Everything reflects everything else like a hologram and the
whole is like a building were everything is connected by their differences from
everything else. Everything is in this case seen as if it were all interconnected
which we know from the proof of Bells Theorem and the fact of the Big Bang to be
true. Since everything in the universe started out in intimate connection and since
everything which was once connected remains connected no matter how far apart
1.See Francis Cook Huan Yen Buddhism
360
we get the effect that everything is actually still connected at a distance and
mutually existentially dependent. However, since we only know things through
manifestation and since showing and hiding is shot through with existential
exclusivity then we can see everything as being empty as well. These two views
see primary process as either void or interpenetration. In fact both the view that
projects the subtle clinging of Being and the view that denies it as either
interpenetration (too much clinging) or Emptiness (too little clinging) are both
reifications of Primary Process. The middle of the road between these two opposite
reifications and distortions of reality are displayed in Taoism. The middle way is
the Tao. For an excellent view of this one should refer to Knowledge Painfully
Acquired by Lo Ch’in-shun who is a Neo-confucian who thought deeply about his
tradition and attempted to get back to the inner essence of it where it is in unity with
Taoism. He produces a simple statement which summarizes the results of his
research:
Day and night I was immerse in this, seeking intently to achieve personal
realization. I had devoted years to it when suddenly one day it seemed to me that the
whole of it had become transparently clear. I submit that the subtle truth of the
nature and endowment is summarized in the formulation, “Principle is one; its
particularizations are diverse.” This is simple and yet complete, concise and yet
utterly penetrating.1
“Principle [Li] is one; its particularizations are diverse,” derives from a statement
made by Master Ch’eng in his discussion of the “Western Inscription” (“Hsi-
ming”). These words are extremely simple, and yet when they are extended to the
principles of the universe, there is nothing that that is not comprehended. This is
definitely true for heaven (or nature), it is likewise true for man, and it is true for all
living things. It is equally true for the individual, for the family, and for the world.
It is true for a year, for a single day, and for all time.2
Principle (Li) is one. Only in response to action will there be form. Once there is
action, there is duality. Without duality, there would not be unity. Within heaven
and earth, action and response are everywhere, and therefore principle is
everywhere.3
This statement of Lo Ch’in-shun “Principle is one; its particularizations are

diverse” is as close as we can get to capturing the essence of our experience of
primal process in words. It therefore must be the starting point for any laying of the
foundations in the quicksand of primary process. For what appears as quicksand for
the builders of empires is the wondrous nature of existence that permeates all
1.Knowledge Painfully Acquired page 64-5
2.KPA page 69
3.KPA page 82
361
things.
Only in “principle is one; its particularizations are diverse” is everything
encompassed, nothing left uncomprehending. Isn’t this the true meaning of the
statement, “In the universe there is no single thing that lies beyond the nature?”1
Lo Ch’in-shun applied the methodology of Heuristic Research which entails total

immersion in order to reach this fundamental principle which expresses the essence
of the Tao as expressed within the Confucian tradition. He did not reach it through
distancing himself from his subject but throwing himself into the problem day and
night until he finally realized what the seemingly diverse writings of the masters of
Confucianism were getting at. His deep thought allowed him to get as close in
words as you can get to what is really an intrinsically tacit knowledge about the
nature of the primal process. Thus when we say that we are laying the foundation
of Autopoietic Reflexive systems we are taking this principle of Lo as our basepoint
because it says in one statement what the Buddhists discovered as separate ways of
approaching the void. That principle is one points to mutual existential dependence
of everything. To say that its particularizations are diverse points to the view of
things that sees complete existential exclusivity. Notice that these two phrases are
connected yet there appears between them a break between phrases. Primary
process is actually delimited within this break between the two phrases. It is the
break or discontinuity between the two phrases that is the center of meaning which
goes beyond what we can say. This is our ultimate foundation which exists in the
realm of the unspeakable.
One thing that is worth noticing is that the state of affairs is a nexus of this
expression of Lo’s aphorism. It combines a warp and woof of unity and diversity
into a single expression which shows unity of principle (Li) at the same time as
showing the diversity of particularization. Thus our ontological position which
attempts to comprehend as much as possible primary process has direct expression
in every state of affairs where the unity of substance is contrast to the diversity of
properties. But in that relation properties are universals connecting to other things
while substances connect to other substances in a differentiated hierarchy of kinds.
Each state of affairs brings the Lo’s aphorism concrete exemplification so that it
does not remain an unconnected to our experience. This is because every state of
affairs appears on the ground of our total experience and thus appears in a
phenomenological context. The universal aspect of properties relate each state of
1.KPA page 67 quote from Chu Hsi in Chu Tzu yu-lei
362
affairs to the total context while at the same time maintaining the disconnection
between existentially exclusive relata. Thus the descending hierarchy of kinds
gives unity to experience while the orthogonality of properties as universality
allows existential exclusivity to operate between myriad states of affairs. Thus the
warp and woof on unified principle (Li) and diverse and discontinuous
particularizations expresses itself not just universally but in every state of affairs.
61. In the Way of nature the sun, moon, stars, and the asterisms are the warp, and
the wind rain thunder, clouds, frost, and dew are the woof. The warp and the woof
are characterized by constancy wherein lies the wonder of origination, prosperity,
advantage and correctness. It is through them that creation is completed. In the Way
of man the relations between sovereign and minister, father and son, husband and
wife, elder and younger, friend and friend are the warp, while the feelings of
pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are the woof. The warp and the woof do not err, and
the reality of humanness, rightness, propriety, and wisdom are included within
them. Their [excellent] virtue and [great] calling are fulfilled through this.1
5.4.1.6. Inertia and Spontaneity
In our exploration of Johannson’s category system we now come to a very

important point. He defines Inertia and Spontaneity as self-change and self-
preservation. “Inertia is self-sustaining non-change and spontaneity is self-
sustaining change.2” We now see that these twin categories have an important
relation to autopoietic systems. Autopoietic systems are self-organizing. Self-
organization is defined as homeostatic maintenance of organization as a variable.
Thus, self-organizing systems are inertial. They preserve their organization. But
strangely they are spontaneous in that they appear out of nothing and dissipate in a
puff of disorganization. So we can see self-organization as a mixture of inertia and
spontaneity. Johannson speaks of causa sui or self-causation. Temporal Gestalen3
causa sui differ from the Inertial and spontaneous temporal gestalten in the
following ways:
(1) they involve a mutual dependence between two temporal Gestalten in one and
the same thing;
(2) one of the two Gestalten enjoys ontological priority in relation to the other
1.KPA page 97
2.OI page 97
3. “An entity is a pure temporal Gestalt if and only if it is a unity of a temporally inclusive universal and a connected non-
variation of a temporally exclusive universal, i.e. the inclusive universal can when instantiated have no actually included uni-
versals.” OI page 93; Exclusive universals have no parts whereas inclusive universals do.
363
A temporal gestalt causa sui is made up of four parts. It has two temporally
inclusive universal aspects and two temporally exclusive universal aspects
combined in such a way that one of the pair of inclusive (having parts) aspects is
connected to one of the pair of exclusive (having no parts) aspects to make a
temporal gestalt. One of the two temporal gestalts are seen to depend on the other.
In other words one temporal thing can kick start another in such a way to make the
entire gestalt appear self-starting. One temporal gestalt acts as the background
against which the self-starting change of the other acts. In this way inertia is
combined with spontaneity in the temporal gestalt causa sui.
There can exist relations between different properties in one and the same thing
which are of such a nature that a change in one property (i.e. temporal Gestalt) has
a necessary connection with a non-change in another property (i.e. another temporal
Gestalt). Such relations are not included in the definitions of inertia and
spontaneity. In the following discussions we shall run into a radically new type of
entity which is of great importance with respect to change. All of the quantifiable
properties which have been discussed so far have ben examples of what physicists
call scalar quantities -- mass, density, for example. Now we come to vectorial
quantities. A scalar quantity is defined by reference to its magnitude, a vector
requires in addition a direction.1
The example that Johannson gives is of course velocity. He connects velocity to

motion through the calculus.
The operation of integration, as well as the corresponding differential operation,
represent a necessary connection between a temporally inclusive property, motion,
and a temporally exclusive property, velocity. If velocity appears in a certain
temporal interval, there must exist a completely determined motion during that time
and vice versa. Anything else is not inconceivable.2
In a vectorial quantity there is an inherent connection between two temporal gestalts

and through one of them to the foundation of inertia or spontaneity. Which one is a
matter of viewpoint. We can either say that motion is self causing or that the
velocity is inertial maintaining the motion as a state. In the connection between the
two temporal gestalts there arises a specific complexity which allows us to either
see it as moving or still depending on our viewpoint.
The concept of ‘self-movement’ is ambiguous. It may mean either spontaneity or
causa sui. But there is sometimes a connection between causa sui and spontaneity.
A Gestalt causa sui is always founded in either spontaneity or inertia (Gestalt =
1.OI page 98
2.OI page 101
364
change or pure Gestalt in time). These latter categories are the more fundamental.
That a process happens causa sui means there exists a necessary connection between
two universals in one and the same state of affairs. And if that connection is to
explain the process, the explanatory universal must be inertial or spontaneous or, via
a new causa sui, be connected with such a universal. Otherwise an infinite regress
occurs.
A spontaneous process in a state of affairs is a process which has its basis neither in
something outside of the state of affairs, nor in some property of it. A process causa
sui does not have its basis in something outside the state of affairs, but it has a basis
in a property of the very same state of affairs. Motion with a constant velocity is an
example of a process causa sui. Motion occurs because a certain other property is
instantiated in the same thing, the vectorial property of velocity. This property is, in
turn inertial.
The non-change of a property of a thing is inertial if non-change does not have its
basis in something outside of the thing, nor in some other property of the thing. But
a non-change can in principle also be a case of causa sui. A non change causa sui of
a property does not have its basis in something outside of the thing either, but in
another property of the same thing. If one turns round the velocity/motion example,
and sees constant velocity as brought about by a spontaneous motion which founds
the former, one obtains an example of non-change causa sui. It could be called
‘Heraclitian non-change,’ because ultimately there is change, but this change is
sometimes necessarily connected with non-change.1
This is very significant because it says that there are things that combine change and
non-change in a special way that is very much like the autopoietic system. We said
earlier that we can see the autopoietic system as both spontaneous and inertial from
different points of view. Now we have a specific vectorial formation that allows
that to occur such that we can have two views of the same thing. We can see the
spontaneity based on inertia or vice versa. An autopoietic system in the classic
formulation is a set of nodes that are self-productive which has inbuilt a cognitive
dimension. Now we can begin by seeing these nodes as vectorial quantities. As
such they each produce a connection between inertia and spontaneity. Self
organization in this model would be an interaction between such vectorial nodes. In
classical physics as Johannson points out there is only one such quantity, velocity
which interacts with a lot of different scalars. But instead think of a system which
has many such vectors interacting. What is called the cognitive dimension of such a
system is the views of it as arising from spontaneity or inertia. Such a system is
self-starting and self-maintaining-- it causes itself.
1.OI page 102
365
The category of process causa sui of course includes the possibility in principle of a
regress of processes which are causa sui. A certain motion can in principle be
produced by a varying velocity, and that change of velocity in its turn be produced
by an inertial acceleration. In the same way it is in principle possible to imagine a
second-order color-change velocity, i.e. a color-change acceleration.
This fact has the consequence that the operation of integration leads from
acceleration to change of velocity and from velocity to motion. Change of velocity
is related to acceleration in the same way as motion is related to velocity. This
means that change of velocity is categorically distinct from velocity. The former is
inclusive in time (like volume in space), the latter is exclusive in time (like color in
space). This is made opaque in physics by the fact that all quantified determinate-
properties are named via numbers, and thus always are named via there distance
from some zero-point on a scale. In this way both velocity and change of velocity,
for example receive the same physical dimension, meter per second, in spite of
velocities being something a thing has at a point in time, while change of velocity is
something the thing undergoes during a particular period of time.1
Johannson says that this produces an infinite regress. But according to G. Bateson
one cannot think this series past the fourth meta-level. Johannson does not follow it
out far enough to see that phenomena. But following Bateson we can see that these
different meta categories do not form an infinite regress. But the regress of causa
sui abruptly ends. If we project what Johannson says back on the vectorial nodes of
the autopoietic system we see that the autopoietic system through the interaction of
its vectorial nodes and the production of higher level causa sui interaction generates
the four meta-levels of Being. This is to say that the nodes themselves exist in the
present-at-hand but the next level of causa sui is the ready-to-hand, and the next is
the in-hand, and the final is the out-of-hand. After that there are no other levels
because they are unthinkable. But this unthinkableness is equivalent to the void or
interpenetration. Each level has its two cognitive views. So we posit that
existential dependency plays a different role at each level. At the level of emptiness
or intepenetration there is either complete existential exclusivity or complete
mutual existential dependence. At the level of Being4 (Wild Being) there is the
complete dispersion of existential exclusivity and existential dependency. At the
level of Being3 there is concentrated existential exclusivity as pure immanence in a
field of existential dependence. At the level of Being2 there is rings or networks of
one way existential dependency. At the level of Being1 or the level of the vectorial
nodes there are trees of existential dependency. This model allows us to see the
autopoietic system in an ontological framework and directly connected to the
structure of manifestation via the generation of meta-levels of causa sui. It is
1.OI page 103
366
through these meta-levels of causa sui that the autopoietic system evolves its
capability of self-organization. At the level of Being1 all we have is the set of
vectorial nodes as if they were frozen as the organization to be preserved. This
level can only generate the illusion of self maintenance. At the level of Being2 we
get the process of self-organization where the nodes cooperate to produce the whole
original organization and impose it back on itself. Autopoiesis is a process. There
can be no doubt about that. But it is a process of maintaining a stasis or an inertial
state. But that process can only arise whole and spontaneously. Thus inertia are
connected in the autopoietic system. Now at the next higher level a strange
phenomena occurs that is not covered by standard autopoietic theory. A point of
pure immanence is produced within the process of manifesting self-organization.
This point of pure immanence stands behind the cancellation of process and anti-
process. In this case anti-process is the cognitive views that are generated as a side
effect of the interaction of the vectorial nodes. Process cancelling with cognition is
pure opacity -- non-transformation and non-cognition. This nexus of pure
immanence becomes the organizing center of the vectorial nodes. It is the other
internalized. G.H. Mead calls this the Generalized Other. It is the hallmark of
sociality. It is the internalization of the response of the other in the self which is
referenced prior to action of the self. Thus we say that at the third meta-level we
reach the boundary of the social. The generalized other is the source of the design
for self-construction that Ford talks about. The source of the design and in fact the
design itself is non-represented and non-representable. It is in fact being constantly
recreated through the social construction of reality. Reality does not mean just
external reality but also internal reality. At the fourth level of Being4 we have the
complete fusion of existential exclusion and existential dependence. After the
cancellation of the cognitive with the transformative what occurs is the same as the
Essence of Manifestation being spread out uniformly throughout the system.
Opacity is mixed with transparency. This is the nature of Wild Being where the
opacity of perception and cognition get noticed for the first time. For Heidegger
this was the realization of the opacity of Language. We use language but in some
sense it is what Frederic Jameson calls the Prison House of Language. We speak its
words not our own and ultimately we do not know what they really mean. But at
this final level of the manifestation of the autopoietic system as vectorial nodes we
encounter the genetic development of the system. It is here where we see that the
system has its origin in other autopoietic systems and that the origin of all
autopoietic systems of this type is always already lost as Derrida likes to say
quoting Heidegger. Thus any one autopoietic system is inherently social because it
comes from other autopoietic systems of the same kind. It has a development
367
trajectory that includes the other autopoietic systems as an assumption. It works out
its own way to negotiate between the environment and its genetic programming.
The emergent quality of sociality appears at meta-level four. At this level the non-
binding of the genetic heritage and the environmental conditions occurs as the
cancellation of freedom and determanancy. This is what allows the reflexive
autopoietic system to re-organize itself. It walks the cutting edge between freedom
and determanancy which allows it to balance the needs of maintaining order against
the risks of change. In some situations remaining the same is a greater risk than
changing. At the fourth meta-level these trade-offs are possible. This cutting edge
between freedom and determination is what allows the emergent event to be seen
and reacted to and even produced and projected thus changing the world. The
reflexive autopoietic system is opposite the normal autopoietic system in that it is
hetrodynamic instead of homeostatic. It is ecstatically projecting itself out onto the
world and thus is projecting its world. But beyond the fourth level there is nothing.
No infinite regress of categorical levels. But instead a trailing off into the
unthinkable. You cannot think what is beyond an acceleration of an acceleration.
So likewise you cannot think what is beyond the fourth meta-level of the
autopoietic system as a set of self-generation vectors.
Johannson goes directly to the point when he argues that emotions are related to
actions in precisely the same way velocity to motion.
The relation which exists between emotional states and their corresponding actions
also normally holds between intentions and actions; exceptions are cases like
omissions and counteracting intentions. Intentions cannot exist though a temporal
interval without expressing themselves as actions; and coversely it holds that it is
impossible for certain actions to exist without corresponding intentions. Emotional
states, feelings, character traits, and intentions are, like velocities and accelerations,
kinds of temporal vectors. They exist at points of time but also point toward the
future. Our common concepts are such that we must be said to understand many
actions as changes causa sui. ...
There is a difference between velocity and acceleration on the one hand, and
intentions and emotional states on the other. The former are quantitative, and the
later only qualitative. This means that only the former can be represented by a
temporal definitive in the strictly mathematical sense. But that kind of ‘pointing’
towards future points of time which is constitutive of temporal vectors can be
understood purely qualitatively and does not require a mathematical formulation --
even if it is a pedagogical advantage to be able to present the pointing with the help
of quantitative temporal derivatives.1
1.OI page 107-8
368
The brilliance of Johannson is that he can see through the mystification of physical
science formulations to the common core of categorical concepts that connects the
social to the physical.
In 7.2 I argued that the category of causa sui allows us to synthesize two distinct
views of the Newtonian concept of motion. Now I am going to argue that this
category also allows us to synthesize two conflicting views of the relation between
emotional states and those actions which correspond to a state. A state is conceived
by some as an underlying property distinct from, but causing, the actions. Others
(e.g. Gilbert Rile), see a state and the actions as in some way identical; a state is
described by a dispositional statement, but such statements are taken as not referring
to distinct properties or states of affairs.
In a way, both intuitions are right. During a given time interval the emotional state
and the actions are indistinguishable in the sense that they occur the same space-
time. The situation is approximately the same as in the case of the color and shape
of a thing. They are aspects or moments of the same bit of space-time. The
emotional state does not lie beneath the actions, nor do the actions lie under the state;
they exist on the same level and occupy the same space. But in spite of this there is
an asymmetry which constitutes the ground for the intuition that the emotional state
is in a sense more fundamental, is ‘underlying’. The asymmetry is the fact that the
state is a temporally exclusive property while the actions are inclusive; the state can
therefore exist ‘as a whole’ before the corresponding actions can become
instantiated as wholes.1
Here we have the crux of the relation between the autopoietic system and its
cognitive aspect. They are separate but equal aspects of the system that occupy the
same space-time region. One aspect you can see. The other represents the forward
arrow in time of all the vectors taken together. At Being1 meta-level this arrow of
intentionality is seen as a static tie to pure spontaneity or pure inertia. At Being2
meta-level this arrow of intentionality is seen as cognitive processes that somehow
inhabit the body of the autopoietic system. At Being3 meta-level this arrow of
intentionality cancels with the transformations themselves which they inhabit and
we see the unconscious as hiding behind this cancellation. The cancellation is the
refusal to become present of the unconscious. At Being4 meta-level the arrow of
intentionality appears as the collective unconscious. When the other disperses
throughout consciousness then the archetypes appear within consciousness from out
of the social fabric from which the individual consciousness was spun. The
archetypes of Jung are all social images. We notice that the single unconscious ID
(it) has broken up into several active centers which are like the gods of the ancient
Greeks which like them can then come in conflict. When this dispersion is taken to
1.OI page 109
369
its logical conclusion no-thing is left thus the process leads to the void. It is the
process of the other entering the system and breaking it up until it is completely
dispersed. In this way we can see the coming into being and the going out of being
of the autopoietic system as a traversal of the meta-levels of Being. The autopoietic
system has the structure of the emergent event. The other which enters and breaks
it up is the emergent event itself of which the autopoietic system is one. Thus the
entering of one autopoietic system into another is the definition of the social. They
interpenetrate and the difference between them is void.
5.4.1.7. Tendency
Johannson speaks of a category of tendency. “A tendency is a thing of itself but has

no results of itself.”1 “It is impossible for a tendency to have a contrary or
opposite.”2 Tendencies are partial intentions. They add together to give the overall
intention. That addition is vector addition. When multiple vectors interact it is
through vector addition. Out of the addition separate tendencies combine to
produce a result. But they are added together at a point. At that point there is no
actual movement only directional tendency. So the tendencies are not real aspects
of things like substances and properties. They are potentials only. We see their
results in the final addition that gives the intention.
Now understanding this new category on tendency is based on an understanding of

the fact that each kind of Being is associated with a kind of mathematics.
Table 7:
Being1 Calculus Determinate

Being2 Statistics Probability
3
Being Fuzzy Sets & Logic Possibility
4
Being Chaos Propensity
What should be noticed is that at Being1 is the production of a static vision of

illusory continuity. Being2 is the production of actualizations. Being3 defines the
possibilities which might be actualized. Being4 gives the means of producing
actualities out of possibilities by the means of propensities or dispositions. We
have already said that the vectors are defined using calculus through integration and
differentiation. They are combinations of two temporal gestalts in a way that gives
direction to one on the background of the other. Klir speaks of these in terms of
1.OI page 164

2.OI page 165
370
variables and their supports. The two temporal gestalts themselves are made up of
two properties. So we have a minimal system of properties where pairs of exclusive
and inclusive properties are cross-matched. The configuration of this minimal
system of properties must be related to one substance so they make up a single
thing. The substance is as it were in a different dimension from the properties. The
temporal gestalt causa sui has yet another different dimension which is its
intentionality. It arises out of the interaction of the two temporal gestalts. We
might think of these two directions within the same ontological layer and in the
same thing as being related as two different poles of unity for the minimal system of
properties. If we treat the minimal system of properties as a lattice we see that a
lattice always has a greatest and least common denominator. The substance and the
intention are like these greatest and least common denominators. Between these
two top and bottom points of gathering of the lattice there is its differentiation. That
has the structure for the minimal system of 1-4-6-4-1. The four properties are one
set of four points. These can have six relations. Together these relations produce
four faces of the properties which are its different aspects as a noematic nucleus.
When we walk around it we see different sides as we see different three way
combinations of properties. The minimal system can also have a mapping to the
substratum and also to a superstraum. These mappings between ontological levels
together with the two dimensions of unity within a level produce a meta-minimal
system of relations which relate it to the outside world. Now the vectors in the
Being1 level are just quantities or qualities. But at the Being2 level the relations
between the intentionality (mind) and substance (body) become important. We see
the substance as that which is transformed by the work of process through the
variation of the properties. We see the intentionality as being the cognitive aspect
of the transforming autopoietic system. In transformation actualities are produced.
Actuality is when the lighthouse is dark between flashes; it is the instant between the
ticks of the watch; it is a void interval slipping forever through time: the rupture
between past and future: the gap at the poles of the revolving magnetic field,
infinitesimally small but ultimately real. It is the interchronic pause when nothing
is happening. It is the void between events.
Yet the instant of actuality is all we ever know directly. The rest of time emerges
only in signals relayed to us at this instant by innumerable stages and by unexpected
bearers. These signals are like the kinetic energy stored until the moment of notice
when the mass descends along some portion of this path to the center of the
gravational system. One may ask why these old signals are not actual. The nature
of a signal is that its message is neither here nor now, but there and then. If it is a
signal it is a past action, no longer embraced by the “now”, but its implies and its
transmission happened “then.” In any event, the present instant is the plane upon
371
which the signals of all being are projected. No other plane of duration gathers us
up universally into the same instant of becoming.
Our signals of the past are very weak, and out means for recovering their meaning
still are most imperfect. Weakest and least clear of all are those signals coming from
the initial and terminal moments of any sequence in happening, for we are unsure
about our ideas of a coherent portion of time. The beginnings are much hazier tan
the endings, where at least the catastrophic action of external events can be
determined. The segmentation of history is still an arbitrary and conventional
matter, governed by no verifiable conception of historical entities and their duration.
Now and in the past, most of the time the majority of people live by borrowed ideas
and upon traditional accumulations, yet at every moment the fabric is being undone
and a new one is woven to replace the old, while from time to time the whole pattern
shakes and quivers, settling into new shapes and figures. These processes of change
are all mysterious uncharted regions where the traveler soon looses direction and
stumbles in darkness. The clues to guide us are very few indeed: perhaps the jottings
and sketches of architects and artists, put down in the head of imagining a form, or
the manuscript brouillons of poets and musicians, crisscrossed with erasures and
corrections, are hazy coastlines of this dark continent of the “now,” where the
impress of the future is received by the past.1
This quote more than any other I have found demonstrates the problem with trying
to define the actual. The actual is ultimately void. But for arguments sake let us say
that there is a difference between the actual and the possible. The actual occurs in
time as a result of a process. It is the laying down of traces in time. The possible
lays out all the potential outlines of those traces. We know these ultimately by
studying the structure of the actual. The possible is in some way the inner necessity
behind the trances laid down in time. Together the actual trances and the potential
trances make up the Li or what was earlier called by Lo Principle. But this does not
tell us where tendencies enter the picture. Tendencies or propensities or
dispositions are ultimately chaotic and they are what turn potentials into actuals.
They actually reside between the potential and the actual as chaotic inclinations that
at a particular moment throw an actualizing potential this way or that so that one
potential is realized over another for no apparent reason. This is in spite of our
intentions. Or it is better to say that our intentions before the act and our intention
in hindsight are not necessarily identical. Just as the substance before the
transformation is not necessarily the same as the substance after the manipulation of
property relations. So we see that propensities or tendencies are fourth meta-level
entities. They make the transformation of possibility into probability occur. They
are very important entities in that they are the basic social matter if we can call them
1.G. Kubler THE SHAPE OF TIME (New Haven: Yale U.P. 1962)
372
that. We have our tendencies, dispositions, propensities, inclinations only within

the social field. They are actually the diacritical moments of significance or what
Alfred Schutz calls relevance. Peirce called them the Third. They have also in
sociological field theory been called tendencies in a situation. They are the
extensions of any relation into the realm of significance which that relation only has
in a meta-relation to the observer. The observer only exists as a social being in
relation to other social beings. There is no lone observer which perfectly
exemplifies objectivity.
Walter Coutu in his book Emergent Human Nature: A Symbolic Field

Interpretation goes the furthest in delineating the concept of the tendencies in the
situational field of symbolic interaction. He calls tendencies in the situation
“tinsits.” Coutu conceptualizes the tendency in terms of probabilities instead of
purely chaotic propensities. Chaos theory had not become widely known at that
time and the differences between propensities and probabilities and other
mathematical approaches such as fuzzy numbers were not well developed. But
tendencies can be looked at as subjective probabilities as a stepping stone to
understanding them as chaotic propensities. He defined a tendency as a “probable
behavior”1 within a field of the situation which is “the total configuration of
relevant behaviors and stimuli involved in an adjustment problem.”2
Since the process could not possibly occur except in some situation, tendency is
herein always treated as a function of the situation, meaning that the tendency varies
with the situation. The situation, then, is an integral part of the tendency. It is not
something necessary to, but separate from, tendency. There are not two things here,
but one, tendency-in-situation.
A mode of thought is becoming evident which... tries to determine the predispo-
sition, not by excluding so far as possible the influence of the environment, but by
accepting in the concept of disposition its necessary reference to a group of con-
cretely defined situations.3
Words and phrases like “field,” “context,” and “social setting” are equivalent to the
concept of “situation,” but the present book will consistently use the words
“conditions under which” interchangeably with the word “situation.”4
The properties of the Tinsit are as follows:
• Direction (toward which)
• Magnitude (strength)
1.Coutu, W. Emergent Human Behavior page 12

2.EHB page 14
3.K. Lewin: A Dynamic Theory of Personality (NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935) p. 40-1 Quoted by Coutu with italics added.
4.EMN page 13-4
373
• Stability (frequency of configuration)

• Commonality (degree of uniqueness)
• Form (kind of energy released)
• Classification into somatic and personic.
A key point is to look at the way Coutu uses the concept of Emergence. He posits a
series of levels that begin with the Universe seen as an ongoing process and ends
with his fundamental unit of behavior: the tinst differentiating into the following
levels:
• Universal Process
• Social Process
• Group Process
• Situational Process
• Individual Life Process (John Doe)
• Unit Behavioral Process (Tinsit)
It is exactly this kind of emergent hierarchy1 that needs to be the basis of any social
phenomenology. Coutu posits that behavior is emergent:
A behavior as an emergent means that it must necessarily, as a resultant integration,
come out of other related behaviors already established in one’s behavior structure.
A behavior appears or occurs in action, as action, because life is a continuous
process, and because of the relatively stable configurations of symbols which direct
and control the process of living in a given society. Every act emerges as part of a
configuration which has itself emerged out of previous configurations of acts.
Every act emerges from similar previous acts in similar situations. Every act is a
special case of a tinsit.
Behavior as an emergent is illustrated by contemporary concepts of invention which
regard inventions as degrees of improvement in devices or techniques already
known, and not as completely new or “unique” events. While every act is to some
degree a new phenomena, no act is completely new; it is, as it were, made of old
parts more or less. An act is new only in the sense that it is an emergent; but we
therefore know something about it before it occurs. It has a degree of probability in
appropriate situations and can be predicted in these terms. “Emergence,” says
Mead, “involves a reorganization, but the reorganization brings in something that
was not there before.” This something new, a continuous variable, is of greatest
significance in personality study, for it represents change, the fundamental principle
of all dynamic systems.
1.Notice how similar this is to our emergent ontological hierarchy.
374
A second, and very closely related, idea involved in the concept of emergence is the
idea of wholeness, configuration, or gestalt -- the idea that every act is
supersummative. Whatever occurs does so as a part of a configuration of
relationships, as part of a synthesis no part of which is exactly the same as the
synthetic whole. This is usually stated in the form “a whole is more than the sum of
its parts.”1
Here we see that Coutu plays down the difference between genuine emergence that
produces the completely new or “unique” events and artificial emergence which is
just an extension of what already exists by small changes and combinations of what
already exists. He sees the difference between these two as a continuous variable.
However, this is a small part compared with the establishment of emergence as a
fundamental part of our understanding of the social situation where tendencies
appear. Emergence is just the first of Coutu’s delineation of the structure of
interaction. He includes selective response that Ford has already mentioned as well
as the specifically sociological concept of role taking. Role taking “refers to our
use of the tinsits of others in our own behavior toward them; that is, in interaction
we assume the relevant tinsit of the other person, rehearse it within ourselves and
then respond to our own rehearsal.”2 Also introduces the concept of Interpersonal
integration which means that in the social situation the tinsits of all those present are
integrated into a single gestalt or whole. “Meetings, conversations, interviews,
discussions, and all other social situations are integrations of all the relevant
attraction-repulsion tinsits of all the participants (“integrants”) in the configurations
context called the situation. The interactional situation is the crucible in which
differential preference patterns and differential attraction-repulsion patterns emerge
and become the mechanisms for the assignment of situational roles and other social
expectancies.”3
We cannot recount the entire content of Coutu and other social field theorists such
as Lewin’s work. But we have given enough of an idea to show that it is possible to
build a theory that is based on tendencies as the primitive of which actions or
behaviors as temporal objects are built up. These are construed to exist in emergent
gestalts or systems of behaviors which are make up personalities (personics) and
which appear in meta-systems of situations. All of this devolves from the
fundamental emergent layer of the social that arises out of the primary process
conceptualized as the universe. This analysis by Coutu does not separate the
1.EHN pages 25-6

2.EHN pages29-30
3.EHN page 39
375
Vectors from the tendencies in as refined a way as Johnnson does. It uses the
cruder idea that tendencies are probabilities rather than partial intentions which can
be thought of as chaotic propensities. Having established that a social science
based on tendency is possible we return to looking at the implications of
Johannson’s ideas.
It is of interest that we find that there is a category at Being4 which has components
of the Vectors at Being1 but that there are no parallel categorical structures at Being2
or Being3. Let us dwell upon this for a moment. Being2 supplies us with actualities
which are realized potentials from Being3. We have said that these two together
define what we have called along with Lo Principle (Li). This means that we are
saying that all the possible orders along with the orders that actually manifest are
the sum of the orders of the universe. Determinate models of these orders at Being1
and Chaotic models of the opposites of all the possible disorders are excluded. But
Being1 and Being4 have something that goes beyond Li or Principle which are there
own contribution and this is the vectors which are ordered and the tendencies that
add together via vector addition which are means of the expression of Principle.
We know that the opposite of Li is Chi. Chi is the flowing or growth of things
which lay down the traces which allow us to see Li. Li as a nonmaterial ordering
principle directs the Chi which lays down the traces that in turn allow us to intuit
what the operating principle is. Chi is always flowing and thus is always
directional. The vectors at Being1 may be said to be moments of its flow. The
directionality of the flow is embodied in the directional aspect of the vectors. All
the vectors taken together provide us with a total flow. We get this total by vector
addition. So the tendencies that come out of vector addition which represent all the
partial directionalities are also implicit in the flow of the Chi. In fact this gives us
two views of the Chi. One view is that it is an illusory continuity. The other view is
that it is a myriad of competing tendencies which together give an overall result.
Thus we can see the flow as either fragmented or continuous. Likewise we can see
the Li as the collection of all actualities that show us a pattern. Or we can think of
Li as the set of possibilities beyond the actualizations which we discover thought
the actualizations. Thus we get a picture here of how Chi and Li are opposites and
how they emanate from different meta-levels of Being working together and the
whole set gives a picture of the unity of Chi and Li. It is important to have this
connection so we are not thinking that Chi and Li are ambiguously defined terms
that do not relate to our model of manifestation. In fact Chi and Li together are
manifestation and they give us a means of relating to the flowing of the autopoietic
system as manifestation occurs as its engulfment by primary process and as its
376
arising from primary process as a secondary process. We see quite clearly that the
meta-levels are the interface between the autopoietic system and manifestation as
primary process. The actual operation of the autopoietic system as a set of nodes
that are vectors is the way the autopoietic expresses itself as a secondary process.
Primarily we see it as a static image in meta-level one and as a process in meta-level
two. But these are only tow out of the four meta-levels and they take only two of
the elements we have associated with Li and Chi. We see Li as actualization and
Chi as continuity. Together these give us a picture of the actualization of the
secondary process as an illusory continuity. But it does not deal with the complete
interface to primary process. It is only the reflexive autopoietic system that
maintains this complete interface between its secondary process and manifestation.
Reflexive autopoietic systems, i.e. social systems, fully manifest the workings of Li
and Chi. Here the other two aspects of Li and Chi respectively play a role.
Possibilities and Tendencies show us the connection between the autopoietic
system and the social fabric. The social fabric defines the possibilities and gives
rise to the tendencies any specific reflexive autopoietic system might realize. We
might speak of these upper two layers as the reflexive system and the two lower
layers as the autopoietic system proper. Both together are necessary for a full
interface between the autopoietic system and primary process. Thus we may say
that in the reflexive autopoietic system primary process and secondary process have
a complete correspondence, i.e. the secondary process has a full complement of
means and capacities for interfacing with primary process but these do not mean
that primary process is limited to that or does not go beyond that. By definition
primary process engulfs and goes beyond secondary process.
This is a good point to bring back up the question of our four distancing methods
verses the method of heuristic research. These are the ways we have developed for
looking at the manifestation of the secondary process of the autopoietic system.
Phenomenology looks at it according to the presentation of the vectorial nodes
attempting to see the system in terms of its intentionality. Dialectics looks at it in
terms of part whole relations. Hermeneutics looks at it in terms the hermeneutic
circle and interpretation of significances or relevances attempting to intuit meaning.
Structuralism looks at it in terms of the discontinuities in the flow and attempts to
get a picture of what makes continuity possible. We know that intentionality, part-
whole relations, significances, and discontinuites are basic aspects of any dynamic
system. But how do we relate these disciplines to what we have already said about
the relation between primary and secondary process. First it is clear that meaning
which Hermeneutics seeks lies beyond meta-level four and actually enters the
377
system from out of the void What we have within the system are many significances
that do not in fact add up to meanings but only point toward meanings. We might
say the same for the ultimate unified intention. What we have are a lot of
tendencies that are parallel to the significances and the nested intentionality that
contains many intentions rolled up into a single overarching structure but it is
unclear where that structure gets its unity. We might notice that unified
intentionality and is opposite the multitude of meanings. We might also notice that
significances are like tendencies but that intentions are contained in the vectors.
What we might see if we looked closely is that both multiple meanings and unified
intention appear out of the void. They give interpretations to the structure of
tendency and intention found within Being level four and one respectively.
Meanings organize significances (the equivalent to tendencies) and inform actions
(the equivalent of the vectorial direction). Unified intention from the void organize
the vectorial directions called intentions and are prompted by tendencies. Thus in
this formulation meanings and intentions are opposites. They are not in fact the
same thing and they both come out of the void into the system. One comes out
unified and the other comes out in multiplicity. One primarily concentrates on the
vectorial direction layer and the other primarily concentrates on the tendencies layer
seen as significances. But both have to do with the layer they are not primarily
concerned with as well. This is a strange formulation. But it is prompted by the
idea that words and actions are opposites and have different foundations appearing
from the void. Johannson thinks words are reducible to actions instead of setting up
an opposition, so he does not deal with words and does not distinguish meanings
form intention. However. if we do distinguish them we see that they can be seen as
opposites in the way they appear from the void and the way they interact with the
vectorial and tendency levels of the reflexive autopoietic system.
Dialectics and structuralism are similarly related. Dialectics deals with part-whole
relations and Structuralism with discontinuities. When Johannson talks about
nested intentionality he is saying that intentionality has part-whole relations and so
this is really a meta-categorical concept for him. Similarly Johannson constructs a
leveled ontology shot through and through with unexplained discontinuities. The
ability to distinguish levels in his categorical system is also meta-categorical. The
part-whole relations allow us to bridge discontinuities. Discontinuities allow us to
distinguish parts form wholes. So these two meta-categories are duals. Now we
posit that the synthesis appears out of the void and the discontinuities appear
ultimately out of the void. But they interact with the reflexive autopoietic system in
different ways. The most important distinction for the autopoietic system is
378
between organization and structures. Organization is a series of part whole

relations stretched across the discontinuities defined by structural relation. So we
see that within the autopoietic system the part-whole relations is arrayed against the
discontinuities. In fact this occurs at every level of the autopoietic systems
organization. Discontinuity as it appears from the void is unified because there is
no differentiation in discontinuity, as there are among positive things. Synthesis as
it appears from the void is multiple because every synthesis is of different things. A
synthesis is shot through with discontinuities. Discontinuity is defined by the
things it separates. These two duals belong together. If we return to
Phenomenology of unified intentionality and Hermeneutics of multiple meanings
we see that unity and multiplicity are embodied in a pair of meta-categories that are
arrayed against the combination of part-whole relations and discontinuities. Thus
our set of four disciplines are well founded in relation to the meta-categories
implicit in Johannson’s presentation of his categories. When we see the autopoietic
system in terms of meaning we use Hermeneutics. When we see the autopoietic
system in terms of intentionality we use Phenomenology. When we see the
autopoietic system in terms of discontinuities we use Structuralism. When we see
the autopoietic system in terms of part-whole relations we use Dialectics. So these
methods are founded on meta-categories that actually exist in the constitution of the
autopoietic system.
When we turn to Heuristic Research we see that it attempts to get rid of distance.
The distance it gets rid of is between the four methods just described. Thus
Heuristic Research collapses the tetrahedron of meta-categories. It treats them as
exclusive rather than inclusive. It reduces distance between them until it is no
longer clear which methodological framework is being applied. This is because we
are immersing ourselves into the interspaces of the discontinuity, what Kubler
called the darknesses between light flashes. We are taking the phenomena as a
whole and treating it as a synthesis. We are searching for all the meanings and the
grand intention or the Why. So in some sense heuristic research walks out into the
void in order to come to know the phenomenal better than if we rely on the meta-
categories as they appear within the phenomenal realm. Each method relies on a
view of the void. It views it either as meanings or as unified intention or as pure
discontinuity or as the ultimate synthesis. But if you do all these things at once you
are pursuing the void itself not just as a means of organizing knowledge about the
phenomenal. The difference that allows this is to not distinguish between these
things. It is a Chinese principle that the center lies in the undifferentiated. Thus
when we do not differentiate meanings from intentions from discontinuity from
379
synthesis then we are pursuing non-action (wu-wei) which is a direct expression of

the void. So we can say that where the meta-categories overlap is the void. Using
them without distinguishing them is the practice of Heuristic Research which is
similar to Feyerabend’s dictum “Anything goes” and “Do whatever works.” In
heuristic research on becomes totally immersed in the on going work of identifying
with ones object of investigation and one forgets method. It is a bottom up
approach that is called constructivist1. Engineers have been using such explicitly
trial and error non-methods ever since they started building things. In software it is
called “hacking” or direct programming without intermediate application of a
method. In the course of this essay the status of embodiments in relation to
methods will be explored in detail. But it is important to understand the relation
between methods and the a-methodical constructivist paradigm or non-method of
immersion and action without guiding theory. This is what heuristic research
attempts to formalize. It is the major means of producing embodiments.
5.4.1.8. Intentionality
Once we have understood the relation between an intention and an action by means
of the vector analogy we can go on to formulate intentions as their own realm and
reality which is co-present with actions but have their own nature. Johannson
explores this reality and points out something of its nature. What we just briefly
what to touch on and what his analysis centers on is how he finds that there is a
similar structure for social intentionality and individual intentionality. He sees
intentionality as being nested so that there are multiple layers of intention all rolled
up into every concrete intentional residue. He says that social intentionality has the
same structure and this is why social intentions are mistaken for individual
intentions and vice versa. But instead here we want to introduce the issues of social
phenomenology. Social phenomenology was really inaugurated by Merleau-Ponty
and carried forward by Deleuze and Guttari. Other attempts have been made to
formulate a social phenomenology but they do not usually operate on Being4 meta-
level. There has been some work by Levinas to formulate a social ontology based
on the priority of ethics over metaphysics which is posed at meta-level three.
However, a full theory must account for the fourth meta-level of being. This brings
us to ask how we deal with cancellation in metaphysics because meta-level four
operates after the cancellation of all antimonies of pure reason. Deleuze and Guttari
solve this by allowing two other disciplines outside philosophy cancel instead of
two philosophies. This allows us to view philosophy as a meta-discipline which is
1.See Alexander Riegler “Constructivist Artificial Life and Beyond” manuscript.
380
not rendered silent by the cancellation. This is a brilliant ruse. The disciplines that
are allowed to cancel are Marxist economics and Freudian analysis. Ontologically
what is destroyed by the cancellation is the level of subjectivity and the individual.
This leaves two ontological levels in tact: desiring machines and the socius. The
desiring machines can be seen as the partial objects as discovered by Melanie Kline.
We may associate them with the vectorial nodes of the autopoietic network. The
socius may be seen as the level at which atomic tendencies float in clouds above the
autopoietic nodes. The socius is a social field made up of many little inclinations
that show how the field is configured at the moment. What we think of as the
individual subject with a personality is an artificial construct that has been
dismantled because its economic and Oedipal structures have been destroyed by
cancelation. Intersubjective or social Phenomenology must delimit the social field
as a primary reality. It must remain closely connected to embodiment as with the
desiring machines construct. It must be constructivist in that it constructs the
individual subject instead of taking it as given. Dasein’s immersion in the they is
seen as primordial. We do not have to give this a negative interpretation as
Heidegger does making it inauthentic nor as Canetti does in Crowds and Power
making it equivalent to mass hysteria. These prejudices were born out of their
times when mass movements were the order of the day based on mass media. But
we can ask for a kind of analysis like that Sartre gives in Critique of Dialectical
Reason volumes I & II. Here we are thinking of the analysis of the fused group as
the primary social nexus that is similar to Canetti’s pack or hunting group. The
analysis by Sartre is the best that is now available. It is stated in dialectical terms.
But his philosophical maneuvers were superb because he uses the dialectic against
itself and gives a dialectical treatment that goes beyond what Marxism normally has
to offer. It may be noted that structuralism may be used against itself to get a
superstructuralism. Hermeneutics and Phenomenology likewise can be used
against themselves. This produces paradox as a means of simulating the void.
Sartre had already used this method in developing the concept of Nothingness. In
Critique of Dialectical Reason the detotalized totality of the practico-inert replaces
Nothingness as the key locus of paradoxicality. In general generating paradoxes to
represent the void obscures the issue rather than makes things clearer. But we can
say that a similar kind of analysis of the social might be carried out in any one of
these disciplines and achieve similar results as Sartre achieved using dialectics
against dialectics. In Phenomenology we turn the problem of intersubjectivity into
the starting point as Merleau-Ponty did (Child development and language
development show that phenomenological structures of consciousness change over
time through socialization). In Hermeneutics we do an analysis of signs as Thirds
381
as Peirce did (Signs on signs produce a third thing which strives to express
meaning). In Structuralism we study episteme changes like Foucault did (We see
the structures of our own projection of structures by looking at our way of
organizing knowledge in categories). All of these kinds of analysis which change
the context by using the thing back on itself have a possibility of capturing a
representation of the social level. In sociology it is called reflexive theory as
practiced by Alan Blum and John O’Malley among others.
Johannson is wrong about the individual and social levels being identical in terms
of the structuring of intentionality. Instead we must look at the social situation as a
field in which the individual is constructed using parts that appear as nodes in the
autopoietic system. Ford’s psychology of self construction and reconstruction is
really the beginnings of a theory of reflexive autopoietic, i.e. social, systems. The
individual is constructed just as the world is constructed. The individual
construction imitates the social construction of the world and in many ways
reverses it. Other than a construction the individual has no reality. The only
realities are the level of machines, the autopoietic nodes or vectors, and the socius
or the realm of tendencies. Thus the individual nested intentionality may be an
imitation of social nested intentionality and that is why they are the same but they
are not the same as parallel ontological realities. The individual intentionality is a
simulcrum of the social intentionality. This is why the individual can only immerse
himself in the void or the combination of distancing methods. He does not have
access to unified intentionality, multiple meanings, discontinuity and synthesis
except as they arise out of the social field. These are socially emergent phenomena
reflected in the configurations of the social field but arising out of the void which
permeates the cloud of the field itself. The field is really nowhere. But it allows
multiple overflowing meanings to manifest. It allows for unified intentionality
between dispersed reflexive autopoietic systems. It allows synthesis to occur. It
allows the appearance of pure discontinuity as emergent events. When you take
these elements and put them together you get the essential transcendental aspects of
the reflexive autopoietic system. The reflexive autopoietic system acts in ways that
appear meaningful, it has unified intentionality, it synthesizes its world and it
produces and reacts to emergent events. All of these allow the reflexive autopoietic
system to make non-nihilistic distinctions. It can distinguish meaning from
diacritical significance. It can distinguish authentic intentions from inauthentic
ones. It can distinguish things that are natural complexes or wholes in the senses
Rescher outlines from the artificial or allopoietic. It can distinguish genuine
emergent events from artificial emergences which are changes just for the sake of
382
change which do not actually change anything. Thus the void is introduces the
possibility of non-nihilistic distinctions into the world along the lines of each of the
individual methods meta-categorical basis.
When Johannson talks about intentionality he calls it object the intentional

“correlate” instead of the intentional “object.” That correlate does not have to be
something in spacetime. It may be a universal such as a property. He says . . .
[t]hat [just because] an intentional correlated can be independent of space and time
does not of course mean that the subject which has intentionality can exist outside
space and time. This is impossible. Every intentional act must exist in space and
time, but not every incantational correlate.”1
So Johannson wants to anchor the subject which projects the intentionality within
space and time but allow the correlate to be independent of spacetime. Considering
those correlates that can have position . . .
we make an observation which is seldom accorded the importance it deserves:
intentional pointing is normally a pointing over or across a spatial and or temporal
distance. The subject is spatially and or temporally separated from the intentional
correlate. Intentionality is normally ‘intentionality at a distance’2
This is very significant for us in terms of our previous discussions of

Phenomenology (intention), Hermeneutics (meaning), Dialectics (part/whole), and
Structuralism (discontinuity). We see that although Phenomenology is the science
being discussed the same statement applies to all of the distance projecting
methods. We can only really appreciate this distance when we contrast them with
their opposite which is Heuristic Research. Heuristic research’s immersion in the
object destroys all distance and the subject even becomes dislodged from its stead
fast position in spacetime. The subject becomes overwhelmed and submerged in the
intentional correlated so that it is as if the distance across spacetime vanishes. Thus
Heuristic Research enters into the realm that Johannson calls impossible. And it is
impossible if your obsessed with maintaining distance in whatever form. However,
if you give up the necessity of distance then it is clear that the subject need not be
rooted so firmly in spacetime. Thus we have the Psychokinesis and Psychovision
experiments of Jahn. Here are examples of where the subject is seen to become
unrooted from its spacetime nexus and is able to project itself in order to have
visions of distant phenomena or to change phenomena so it deviates from the
1.OI page 199

2.OI page 199
383
statistical norm. These phenomena are explained by Jahn in terms of the macro-
quantum mechanical effects. Where it is possible for the subject to tunnel through
the potential well that normally traps consciousness and subjectivity in one
particular spot in spacetime. It is clear that the Copenhagen interpretation that limits
quantum effects to the micro world produces an untenable and artificial
discontinuity in the world. Better to accept that there are macro-quantum
mechanical effects, and that the universe is uniform and not split by an artificial
theoretical barrier. If we can live with this postulate then we turn round and view
the distance effects concentrated on by phenomenology, hermeneutics, dialectics
and structuralism differently. We see these as means of screening us from macro-
quantum effects. If we project significance to cover meaning, if we project
intentions to cover propensities, if we project part/whole relations and
discontinuities the we can remain distracted by these from the macro-quantum
mechanical effects that we are totally immersed in but have learned to separate
ourselves from in order to project an external reality in which we are isolated
subjects. Social phenomenology collapses this distancing by which the world or
subsets are designated as real. Social phenomenology returns to the always already
lost origin where meaning, intention, discontinuity, and synthesis are one matter.
Social phenomenology pushes us out into the void. But by that move, that jumping
off the deep end, social phenomenology can give a coherent account of subjectivity
and its arising out of the social and of the social construction of the world through
the differentiation of meaning, intention, discontinuity, and synthesis. Through
them the world is kept at bay and understood. But we always have the possibility of
walking into the zone where these moments of the void fold into one another again.
But we also see, and this is the strange part, that the social is fundamentally
described by these four meta-categories. The social is dependent on the existence of
discontinuities between reflexive autopoietic beings. There is no society of the mind
in this sense. Societies must be based on separate embodiments correlating their
actions and attempting to achieve resonance with each other. Society is in fact a
Synality or a synthesis of personalities. It is a synthesis of what the individuals that
make it up have to offer which is a priori to those individuals. It is based on
symbolic exchanges that coordinate significances and attempt to approximate
meanings. It is based on coordination of actions so that the partial intentions or
tendencies, we could call them desires, describe the behavior of whole groups of
people. Societies coordinate actions and symbolic exchanges of their members.
Societies form a sui generis whole out of essentially disconnected organisms. So
although society emanates from or describes the always already lost origin of the
social group it also in its concrete embodiment exhibits the properties of the four
384
essential social methodologies. Thus we may posit, and the Chinese knew this very
well, that when ever we enter into the void we are entering into the origin of the
social. Thus the person who is not doing anything, who is not speaking, who is not
distinguishing, who is not differentiated, i.e. the sage, is the center of society. They
are not vegetating but have gathered themselves into themselves and have
intimately entered into the most social of realms. We normally think of the outward
interactions as social. But these are only social in a derivative sense. They are the
outward manifestation of sociality as something differentiated in the world. But the
inner manifestation of sociality is in the non-differentiated, non-discriminating,
non-intending, non-signifying social individual. Jung knew this. He said that the
collective unconscious lay below the subjective unconscious and was far deeper
than what Freud called the Id. When we go into ourselves superficially we
encounter solipsism. But when we go deeper we encounter pure sociality which is
the source from which our egos originally appeared out of through socialization. So
both the origin out of the void and the differentiated social methods are views of the
same basic socially rooted phenomena.
We are positing that intentions are not the only ways of relating to correlates. In fact
we can say that there are signification correlates, discrimination correlates and
synthetic correlates as well. Thus we see Kant’s philosophy with the synthetic a
priori coming before the analytic as an example of a philosophy concentrating on
synthesis instead of intentionality. Phenomenology concentrates on intentionality
but this is a reduction of consciousness which is more multifaceted. Intentionality
was selected by the phenomenological movement because this was the correlate in
consciousness of action. Forming Hyle into noematic nuclei is the equivalent of
action within consciousness. But this tends to subsume meaning and eventually led
to the necessity of using hermeneutics as a means of supplementing this internal
action orientation. Likewise both of these approaches tend to play down
discrimination of relevant differences and discontinuities. The ability to
discriminate the relevant correlates is an important aspect of consciousness as well.
Finally, the ability to synthesize is equally important within consciousness. The fact
that synthesis is necessary first before analysis can take place is lost in current day
so called Analytic philosophy. There are synthetic correlates of consciousness as
well that lead to the formations of gestalts. But the correlates are in all these cases
not just objects. Objects are one example from the emergent ontological hierarchy.
In fact, correlates can be any of these levels. Thus, we posit that each level in the
ontological hierarchy has at least four possible ways of being constituted within
consciousness. A system, for example, is discriminated by separating it from the
385
rest of the world. It is synthesized into a gestalt. It is the correlate of intentionality

that relates the gestalt to the actions of the observer, thus giving the gestalt a
noematic nucleus which is seen by the regulation of behavior in relation to the
object. Lastly it is given significance in relation to other things in the world. Each of
these moments of the constitution of the correlate from an ontological level can be
realized within consciousness. Now this consciousness is not the primary
possession of the individual. This emphasis in our culture on the individual is a
distortion of normal human relations. Instead, we say that consciousness is first and
foremost social so that constitution of any correlate is a negotiation process. The
shared aspects of the correlates are primary and dominate the non-shared aspects.
And notice that the moments of constitution are exactly those things that can be
shared most easily. Meanings are shared through language. Intentions are shared
through reciprocal actions which establish and maintain rapport. Discriminations
exist first and foremost as taboos. Synthesis exists as shared fate of the community.
These moments of constitution are in fact the basic means of establishing sociality
or intersubjectivity. But in truth they come out of the origin of sociality in which
they are all melded together into a non-dual source. Loy speaks of non-dual
perception, thought, and action. The non-dual character of these aspects of our
behavior and consciousness is a difficult state of mind to reach. Loy identifies it
with enlightenment in several Asian religious traditions. Such possibilities of
experience are cut off in the West by the predominance of concepts related to
duality and excluded middle. However, it is precisely the non-dual that is in fact
social. And it is the absence of significant reasoning tools that help deal with non-
duality that the social is not recognized as being the most important strata that props
up our whole world. Instead we think it is the physical which Loy in the end must
deny. And we must deny that too if we are going to establish a proper social
phenomenology / hermeneutics / dialectics / structuralism. The social is primary
and objective reality beyond the lifeworld is an artificial construct which is
designated as real. It is constructed by multiple simultaneous means of distancing.
We construct it by cutting off meaning, denying the unity of intention, producing
nihilistic distinctions that cloud every issue instead of non-nihilistic ones, and by
denying synthesis. But when we look deeply into it we see that this production of
the objective as correlate that reduce us to subjects quickly falls apart when we first
realize that beneath the superficial strata of subjectivity is a deep well of the
intersubjective which is hard for us to recognize because we are not used to dealing
with non-duality. The social is non-dual in that in it meaning, intention,
discrimination, and synthesis are bound together into a non-whole that projects out
into the void and that gives our world its fundamental basis. Levinas is wrong about
386
the social situation being the confrontation with the other. Beyond the bearing of
the other which he describes is the total engulfment of by the other which occurs at
the highest meta-level of Being. All the levels of Being (pointing, grasping, bearing,
encompassing) stand against the void. But ultimately the self and other are non-
dual. That non-duality is the essence of the social. Pointing at the Other, Grasping
the Other, Bearing the Other, being Encompassing by the Other all assume some
sort of duality between self and other. But sociality assumes that the self and other
are non-dual, they are the Same, belonging together instead of standing in dualistic
power relations. Non-duality denies the dualisms set up by the West between mind
and body, self and other, nature and culture, etc. But the denial of dualisms in a
sense presuppose dualism. The realm of dualisms are the realm of Transcendence,
of projecting distancing. Against that stands the non-dual realm of the void which is
ultimately the social as a source of the world. From the social the emergent worlds
arise. The social construction of the world is not a cooperative project between
individuals. The social appears before there are any individuals. Individuals are our
cultural reification. The social construction is a form of mutual dependent arising.
All the players arise together to play their roles and create each other as a
harmonious interdependent network. It rises through the levels of harmony defined
by Chang as logical, interaction, mutual dependence and interpenetration. When it
reaches the level of interpenetration the social is identical with the void. So when
critics of the social say it is really no-thing they are right. But the point is that it’s
reality is preeminent so that everything else has even less “reality” than the social.
Jonannson differentiates fictional from real intentionality and then goes on to

differentiate presentational from representational intentionality under the rubric of
the real. Both presentation and representational intentionality may be satisfied or
not depending if they reach their objects. These different kinds of intentionality may
be mixed in the same intentional act. A satisfied presentational intentionality has an
Immanent intentional correlate. A satisfied representational intentionality has a
Transcendent intentional correlate. Fictional intentionality or unsatisfied real
intentionality have no intentional correlate. What is called immanent and
transcendent here is only relatively so and are actually both transcendent from the
point of view of manifestation. I believe this distinction between representation and
presentation in Johannson reflects some uncritical assumptions on his part about
manifestation. From the point of view of manifestation both presentations and
representations have the same status. He attempts to give presentations a stronger
link to reality and this attempt would probably be hard to defend as we looked
closer. Where is the line between presentations and representations given
387
Feyerabend’s idea that all perceptions are submerged theories which are no longer
held at the conceptual level and have just become the furniture of our world. So the
distinctions are there for those who think they are valuable.
Far more valuable is his defense of naive realism which sees perception as a looking
out at things rather than a passive reception of energy waves. Here he defends the
concept that intentionality operates at a distance or across a distance both in space
and time. This violates the assumption that everything is compact in spacetime and
does not effect anything it does not touch.
The other alternative is to accept an irreductive materialism and “intentionality at a
distance” as a special form of connection across both space and time. A connection
which, without necessarily being mental, allows ‘hops’ over both spatial and
temporal distance. This type of connection is the only type which allows us to retain
our concept that, in a literal sense, we live in a common world. It implies, given the
view that perceptions require energy transport form the object to the subject, that we
normally perceive backwards in time. The subject- and object-poles in a perception
are non simultaneous. We perceive through time (as through space), but only
backwards. Such a conception does not upset our everyday conception very much,
as does the view that we can perceive forwards in time. But there are neither
ontological nor scientific reasons for the later view.
The two alternatives described here are the main two possible alternatives today.
The choice consists -- to put it more sharply -- in either accepting a monadology or
in accepting that we can be in direct contact with distant states of affairs and with the
past. It seems obvious to me that the costs of the first alternative are too high. We
must begin to accustom ourselves philosophically to the thought we all daily take as
implicitly given, namely that we are in at least partly direct contact with both nature
and other people.
What is most difficult to accept in this form of naive realism which I am advocating,
is of course that part which is not directly in keeping with genuine naive realism,
namely the view that one perceives across or through time instead of at a particular
moment. Here we ought to remember that “through time” is always connected with
“through space,” otherwise it is easy to become confused. . . It is an illusion that
ordinary temporal perceptions are momentary in time. If one accepts this, then it is
not difficult to imagine perceptions through time.1
Here we see that Johannson lays the foundation for the entry of the social into his
ontology directly by situating intentionality as a phenomena that operates at a
distance through space and time. This allows us to have direct connections to other
subjectivities which are isolated in space. It explains the signaling problem that
1.IO page 225-5
388
Kubler spoke of in his definition of actuality. We do perceive signals but we do not

perceive them as momentary. Instead our intentionality is operating backwards in
time so we feel as if we are looking out into the world when in fact we are receiving
signals. The ability to operate backwards in time allows us to feel as if we have
direct contact with other social beings at a distance and achieve rapport and
resonance with them. In fact the concept of consciousness running backward in time
explains a lot of paradoxes which otherwise remain unexplained. It connects with
Husserl‘s concept of internal time consciousness that sees retention as a sliding into
the depth of consciousness with new deposits pushing down the old. If we just posit
that we read the retention stack upward instead of downward, as Husserl implied,
then we see how we can feel as if we are reacting to things that are momentary
which actually took place somewhere back in time. By reading backwards we feel
as if we are projecting when physics and biology says we are receiving emitted
signals. One of the mysteries of the blankness between signals that Kubler indicates
is that we are processing backwards during those blanks so that we can feel as if we
are projecting forward. The cleverness of Johannson’s formulation is that by
reversing the processing of temporal events by consciousness he has found a way to
make naive realism make sense even though the whole idea that we are constantly
going backwards in time may seem absurd at first blush. But by going backwards
we can act as if we are in sync with the signals in the moment even though we are
actually in “actuality” out of synch because of signal propagation times. This
reversal makes it possible understand how intentionality at a distance works as an
illusion of direct contact across a distance with others. Everyone is operating
backwards in time. So they are syncing with each other to form a rapport or
resonance by running the sequence of signal impacts backwards. and reacting in the
moment to the sets of signals taken in chunks. This suddenly makes the Old English
concept of time as always past make sense. They had no concept of the future. Acts
were either finished or in process. Finished acts were laid down in stratum into the
past. But think of it. For this system to work there must be chunks which are
processed backwards. During processing there must be blank periods such as
Koestler suggests. The the current act must be the result of running a particular
chunk of signals backward and then coming up with a response which is then acted
upon to produce another set of signals for others I am interacting with. By
processing the chunk backwards I feel as if I am projecting it and am directly in
touch at a distance with those with whom I am communicating. It is an illusion but
it preserves the feeling of direct interaction in the moment. But it means that we are
actually closed down while processing occurs with gaps in experience. Then enters
multi-processing. Our brains are very good at parallel processing. So we get a view
389
of the processing of different chunks simultaneously so that we feel as if there is an

illusory continuity to consciousness when in fact there are great blanks in our
experience which we do not see while processing is occurring. We are skipping
from one result of backwards computation to another to quickly to observe the
discontinuities between the chunks that are being processed backward in parallel.
Suddenly we see how the unconscious enters into our consciousness and why we
cannot see it. It is the unconscious that accepts and chunks signals and then calls for
the parallel processing of many chunks and then offers them to consciousness one at
a time in a virtual serial fashion to give the illusion of continuity and projective
connection at a distance with other beings especially social beings with whom we
feel in rapport. This connects with Benjamin Goertzel’s concept of consciousness of
being made up of dual networks both hierarchical control and heterarchial memory
networks. These two networks occur together in consciousness and the mind is the
structure of the networks. In this work he talks of how things that are associated are
stored near each other and that the mind might be constantly shifting whole
collections of things that are stored together. The description is all in terms of
memory as a space. But if we add to this the concept of memory processing signals
backward and we see the memories as the chunks that have to be parsed and
processed in parallel then the whole model proposed by Goertzel makes a lot more
sense. We do not see the shifting of the heterarchy because that is the work of the
unconscious as it manages the backward processing of chunks called memories. We
could go so far as to say that the memories we have and associate are in fact traces
of prior computations done in the same part of memory and that the unconscious
tries to use the same parts of memory to compute the same kind of experience. This
is how analogies are produced. There is a channeling effect or an increasing returns
where the parts of the mind that have processed a particular kind of experience
before will be best suited to process it again. That in the kind of memory we have
every computation leaves traces and these traces can be recalled. It also explains
how the future can be just an illusory inversion of the past. Actually there is only
the past but we can project the future because we are constantly doing that by
running experiences backward in time in order to sync with other subjects that are at
a distance. The Old English concept of time with only the past is closer to the truth
in that it recognizes the mechanism by which this illusion is created. It is created by
the laying down of memory deposits as particular experience chunks are processed
backward in time in parallel managed by the unconscious.
Now we see clearly where the unconscious or the immanent aspect of manifestation
comes into play within the individual’s experience. In order to be synchronized at a
390
distance we need to run through experiences backward in time so we feel as if we

are projecting when in fact we are receiving impulses. This produces the chunks of
experience which are being processed in parallel and being offered to us in what
Goertzel calls a virtual serial processor simulated within the parallel processing of
the brain. This means that consciousness is an illusory continuity which is underlain
by vast discontinuities which are not see by consciousness which thinks it is seeing
everything in the now and processing along with time working forward. But we can
also see where the intersubjective unconscious enters the picture. Since all subjects
who are apparently in rapport are doing the same thing, processing experiences in
chunks backward in time, then there is a global coordination problem. Any one set
of signals must be coordinated with other signals coming from different sources. So
there must be unconscious cues that coordinate the reciprocity between signals sets
from different sources. This is called a protocol in computer communications
theory. We see that the collective unconscious must be continually managing this
protocol which gives the feeling of rapport and resonance with ones interlocutors.
Otherwise the chunks that are processed backwards might get out of synch. In fact
this is the difference between a monadology and a social space such as projected by
naive realism. In a monadology this synchronization and protocol is missing and
everything occurs in the moment for everyone. Since there can be no global clocks
it is impossible to synchronize and so everyone is trapped in a solipsist universe of
their own making. Symbolic Interactionism shows us how the synchronization
occurs. It occurs by means of signs and symbols. If we merely add the concept of
symbolic self-completion to the normal ideas of symbolic exchange then we have
the necessary chunking mechanism which renders a set of symbols complete in a
chunk of the protocol. In other words there is a great desire for a given symbolic
production to be completed because that forms an experiential chunk which will be
processed on the other end of the communications channel. Also we see how
chunking involves all four of our approaches delineated earlier. It is intentional in
the sense that it is a connection at a distance. It is connected to meaning in the sense
that language and meaningful gesture forms the protocol for exchanging chunks
that all participants will process backward in time in parallel. It involves
discontinuity and discrimination of differences because each chunk must be a finite
size which is quickly processable. It involves synthesis because each chunk must in
some sense be a whole. So suddenly we have a picture of how our four approaches
to the social can work together to form the underlying social illusory continuity
which the illusory continuity of consciousness is based upon. Note that the set of
interacting persons are multiprocessing and the brain in multiprocessing chunks of
experience. The bottle neck of virtual serial processing in the consciousness of the
391
individual is the bottle-neck. However, we can see that this bottle-neck is intimately
connected to the multiprocessing on the other two levels. It depends on the social
unconscious that produces the cues and coordinates the protocol and the individual
unconscious that does the parallel backward processing of experience chunks. The
social and the individual unconsciousness is intertwined completely so that one
makes no sense without the other. They are both completely intertwined with the
individual illusion of consciousness as a now point moving though time. They
together make that illusion possible. But that illusion could not be further from the
truth. The illusion is shot through and through with the gaps between the chunks
and the redundancies of the protocol. Naive realism is supported by a very strange
mechanism which is mostly hidden from view. It also makes us understand why we
do not see macro-quantum mechanical phenomena. The chunks are the macro
quanta and thus because our consciousness is completely enveloped by these
quantal effects it cannot see them. The illusory continuity effectively covers them
over. Thus in one fell swoop because of the key provided by Johannson we can
unify Goertzel’s theory of dual networks of consciousness, macro-quantum
mechanics that denies the Copenhagen interpretation and sees all levels of reality as
quantal, and also we are able to clearly see how the collective and individual
unconscious work together to produce the illusion of the subject moving on a now
point forward through time based on the actual processing of chunks of experience
backward through time. It is a strange world in which we live. And we are the
strangest of all the creatures in this world. That strangeness is our inherent sociality
at the foundation of our natures.
I don’t believe that any ontologist has been so brave before as to say something so
counter intuitive. The whole idea that intention that seems to move forward through
and across time is built on the processing of experiences backward through time and
that is what solves the problems of solipsism is an amazing discovery. It is like the
discovery of the counter intuitive aspects of relativity or quantum mechanics only at
the ontological level. It is indeed a crazy idea. But as one considers it the merits
begin to outnumber the demerits. Of course it makes one think of Feynmen
diagrams where particles move backward in time. In fact this is exactly the idea. In
our experience there are certain chunks where we are moving backward in time but
since these chunks are being parallel processed we do not experience them in our
conscious serial virtual computer. But if we were to draw a map of the parallel
processors we would see them moving backward from the now back into short term
memory processing the whole chunk of experience until they had a whole which
they could present to consciousness as a picture or snap shot. Since the snapshots
392
overlap in what we cover the serial virtual processor does not notice that the
snapshots are really durations played backward. Instead it has the sense of moving
forward through time, of looking out at things, and forming them with the
intentional morphe, and synchronizing with other people. Our experience is
opposite of what an organism moving forward through time would have. this is why
it is called naive realism. But the fact that this oppositeness can be generated just by
reversing the processing of time to backwards instead of forwards is an amazing
counter intuitive move which yields unexpected results.
Johannson also makes the point that reflexion is also an illusion. He says that when
one reflects on one self say thinking about thinking one is making a connection
through a temporal distance between one point in time and the next. So one is really
reflecting on the last moment’s reflection. Thus the paradoxicality is also an illusion
which sees thought thinking itself. Thought is really separated from itself by a
duration in time. That duration is a chunk that is processed backwards. Therefore,
the reflexion contains a reversibility in time. We posit that this reversibility gives
reflexion its opaque character. This is the same reversibility that Merleau-Ponty
called the chiasm only expressed in temporal terms. Each reflexion contains two
phases one processing forward in time and one processing backward in time which
are connected. For this reason thought thinking about itself, as carried our by
Descartes, is not transparent but opaque. The thoughts appear from nowhere. But
like all intentions they leap from thought to thought. Thought like a dog chasing its
own tail cannot quite catch up to itself to be pure in some sense or to give itself a
ground in first principles. But this inward reflexion is just an internalization of the
outward reflexion of society looking at itself through the illusory continuity of
communality which is really artificial synchronization produced by using linguistic
protocols to coordinate backward processing in all individuals making up the group.
The outward reflexion is the essence of the social through the production of rapport
and resonance among the members of the community. Each person takes the role of
the other in relation to themselves and uses that to predict what is expected of him.
Thus each individual is looking at himself through the medium of the group looking
at him. This is called taking a role and Coutu and other symbolic interactionists go
into great detail on how this works. It is based on the insights of G.H.Mead’s social
psychology. But here we see the backward processing at work, call it back tracking.
When a person has an intention and looks toward the results of his actions we might
liken that to forward chaining of rules that give a result. but we might instead say
given a result what conditions must have been true to arrive at that result. This is
back tracking. Now we see back tracking and forward chaining combined in the
393
taking of roles. We decide what the other would like to see and backward chain to
see what conditions would give that result and then starting from those conditions
we forward chain to see what that would mean for us if we attempted to do what the
other wanted. Thus our forward goal is related to the backward chaining from the
goal of the other as we project it. The reversibility of taking the role of the other
towards one self is exactly the same as thought thinking itself. Only in the social
thought the separation is between different individuals each thinking about
themselves via their rapport with the other in order to maintain resonance with the
other. In fact thinking is the necessary capability that all role taking is based upon.
Thinking is the internalization of the social as a set of subdued responses that allow
us to predict the social consequences of our actions before we do them. First and
foremost we think about social consequences. Then slowly we spread out to think
about other things. Finally thought discovers itself and starts thinking about itself.
Then the reversibility which appears outwardly in the social is fully represented
inwardly. But just as the social is an illusion so to is the paradoxicality of thought
thinking itself. But then when we think about it the social process and its illusory
continuity is all we really have as a basis for the world. So we ultimately must turn
our designation of reality upside down and see that what is socially agreed upon is
really the only reality there is and all the mechanisms that produce this illusory
continuity are less real than it.
Now our analysis of role brings us to Johannson’s analysis of shame. He is

following after Sartre here in his analysis which shows that Shame is a structure
within the world which presupposes interacting intentionalities of different subjects.
Shame is the result of a role gone wrong. So it (or its opposite Pride) is of the same
logical type as the role. Roles are intersubjective realities or what Johannson calls
nested intentionalities.
When an intentional act of a subject is existentially dependent upon intentional acts
of other subjects, we have a very specific kind of ontological unity which I shall call
nested intentionality. Such unities can be more or less nested, but the fundamental
structure of nested intentionality is A-> (B->A).
Here we see that the reversibility occurs within the subject where he takes the role
of the other looking at himself. He posits that the student teacher relation is of this
type as well. The teacher is only a teacher if he sees students which see him as a
teacher. The student is only a student if she sees a teacher who sees her as a student.
Now it is possible to construct different kinds of nested intentionality where the two
subjects see themselves in the eyes of the other and want the other to see them
394
seeing themselves in the eyes of the other. This can lead to very complex structures
which are in fact infinitely nested and reflective on each side. Johannson calls this
“intentional mirror infinity” where each side is producing an opposite infinitely
nested series of reflections. It is like the images in two facing mirrors. Actually the
images are not infinite but only appear to be infinite in both directions.
My thesis is quite simply that intentional mirrors constitute a special sort of infinity.
They are of course potential infinities in the same sense as spatial extension is
potentially divisible to infinity. But spatial extension and intentionality are as
different as categories can be, and so we must have tow completely different kinds
of infinity. That intentionality can involve infinity is neither more nor less disturbing
than the role of infinity in other categories.
An analysis of the intentionality moment of phenomenal of the mutual type -- like
friendship, love, and loyalty -- must result in an infinite regress of the type
described. Even if A likes B and knows that B likes him, friendship is more than this.
It contains the possibility that B should know that A knows that B likes him, and the
possibility that A should know this, and so on. Since the intentionality category is
such that the subject-pole is anchored in only one body-substratum, there can be no
question of any absolute mutuality in the sense of the complete merging into one
another that the mystics claim to describe. The closest we can come to one another
as subjects is to stand in the mutuality relation exhibited by intentional mirrors.
By adding more and more subjects with similar nesting Johannson shows what the
structure would be like with three or four or n subjects. He says that this generalized
structure of nesting to infinity gives the real structure of intersubjectivity. Now here
we both agree and disagree with Johannson. First we agree that nested intentionality
is the basic structure of intersubjectivity. We know that from symbolic interactionist
sociology already. Subjects take roles in relation to others based on how the others
view the subject. With everyone doing this at the same time as they participate in
the illusory continuity of social relations then we have a very complex structure of
everyone taking everyone else into account. But the suggestion that there is virtual
infinite regresses in these relations and that there is no merging of subjects is where
we beg to differ with Johannson. First the regresses are only potentially infinite and
no one actually explores the regresses to any level of depth because to do so would
to be to stop action and become frozen. That these possible sandtraps exist as they
do for thought can be accepted. However, real interaction avoids the sandtraps of
regressing reflexion like the plague. Johannson has forgotten his own category of
spontaneity. Interaction is based for the most part on either spontaneity or inertia.
Inertia keeps the action trapped at the lowest levels through force of habit. One
occasionally might look into the sand trap and contemplate for a moment what
would happen if one fell into it but for the most part we do not realize that they are
395
there because we do nor reflect on our roles. Or we avoid the sand trap by
spontaneously generating new roles and new ways of relating which through there
very novelty cause us to forget about being socially self-conscious. However, that
these sicknesses of social relations can be produced usually as double binds there is
no doubt. However, normally they are not encountered unless our actions lead to
unexpected results or we are approaching some situation that we wish to avoid.
Then we enter these sandtraps as a matter of course. For instance if one has done
something wrong. An internal conversation with the other automatically starts and
may not end for some time as one explores all the possible ways of getting out of
the situation with the least damage to ones position within the structures of nested
intentionality of the group. However, the fact that intersubjectivity can be explained
through nested intentionality does not mean that we have a full picture. Johannson
has forgotten the very phenomena that we dream most social which is the
establishment of a rapport or resonance between different people within the same
community. This rapport or resonance is indeed a mystical merging that Johannson
denies. But this is because Johannson does not recognize the non-category of the
Empty or Void which appears as non-duality and in terms of the levels of harmony
of the nested relations. Johannsons nested relations assume the law of excluded
middle. He does not recognize the state of neither--nor or both--and as having any
possible truth value. However, against his position we posit that relations between
subjects form a fully embedded structure. There are nestings which are
combinations of subjects that are neither--nor and we call this the Other. There are
nestings which are both-and we call these macro-agents. Over and against his
analysis of the relation between micro and macro agents we posit that they are not
just summaries of separate micro agent intentionality structures held independent of
each other. But that intentionality structures not only interpenetrate but also become
enmeshed in each other and held in common. This occurs when one person steps
into the both-and spot and becomes the locus of sharing nested intentional
structures. Johannson seems to forget learning and the possibility that I could
acquire a nested intentional structure from someone who is a what G.H. Mead calls
a significant other. The significant other is the one who holds nested intentional
structures that can be copied and used by members of the group and thus through
learning these intentional structures may be shared between multiple participants.
Besides this we note that intentional structures may in fact be mystically shared
through internal rather than external mechanisms. We have already posited that the
heart of the social is the void which is the highest level of harmony. As we work up
the levels of Harmony proposed by Chang we see that two subjects with logical
harmony are totally static in their juxtaposition with each other. Then at the next
396
level there is interaction and so we get analyses such as Sartre does of two fighters
and the whole fight they together constitute. But it is at the level of mutual support
where roles come into play and we get nested intentionality as the harmony of
separate agents who voluntarily take each other into account. But there is one more
level of harmony posited by Chang which is the level of interpenetration where
there is more than mutual support. It is where the actual intentional nested structure
is shared and merged. This level of harmony is equal to entering the void. It is the
origin of the social. It only appears when one becomes non-dual. Not only is the
excluded middle thrown out but the both--and is considered as an internal relation
between the subjects. That internal relation is called interpenetration. In this state
the two subjects have aspects of the same learned nested intentionality that they
share but as such they also have images of the other net inside their net so that the
result is the social equivalent of the hologram. Each part contains a representation
of the whole. G.H. Mead called this the Generalized Other. It is the opposite of the
collective unconscious. It is a unity that represents the things consciously known
about the collective other. The collective unconscious is a fragmented cluster of
suppressed or forgotten things unknown about the collective. The generalize other
is abstract and passive whereas the collective unconscious is particular and active.
Be that as it may we see that the social has “mystical” aspects which are not
reducible to individual subjectivities and their nested intentionalities. The different
kinds of macro agents such as the fused group of Sartre and the Pack of Cannetti
make reference to these special social formations in which the individuals are
immersed in the They (Das Mann). Johannson’s analysis is flawed in that he tries
his best to maintain his analysis in the realm of the present-at-hand that all analytic
philosophers worship. His non-recognition of higher meta-levels of Being and
failure to take them into account lead to what can only be seen as flawed
conclusions. However, in spite of these obvious flaws Johannson’s analysis is the
best around to base our social phenomenology. For given the added structures just
mentioned which account for other meta-layers of Being we may because of
Johannson’s work give a precise definition of intersubjectivity in terms of nested
intentionality. The only points added to his account is that there is the neither--nor
of the Other and the both--and of the one who exemplifies the shared nested
intentional structure from whom we can learn our nested intentional structure. Also
there is the different levels of harmony the last of which takes us out of nested
intentionality into the harmony of interpenetration which is an inward both-and as
opposed to the outward both-and mentioned before. Macro agents come in various
types and have their own realities as combinations of nested intentionalities which
can have characteristics different from the intentionalities of the micro agents taken
397
in sum. Here the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and we can call it
Synthality (or synthetic personality of the group). The fact that Johannson does not
affirm this is a flaw in his ontology that should be corrected because he allows
properties to combine together to produce a substance which has independent
reality within the state of affairs. How is the production of a social whole any
different? In fact it is necessary to produce social groups with realities of their own
in order for sociology to have any phenomenon to study separate from psychology
and it is also necessary to affirm that the social is a fundamental reality from which
all other forms of reality are derived. This cannot be affirmed if macro-agents are
nothing more than the addition of separate nested intentional structures. Mysticism
may not be respectable in a viewpoint that lives by imposing distance through the
distancing approaches to social phenomena. But with our methodology of Heuristic
Research we no longer have to be afraid of becoming over involved in the object of
study. In fact we realize that is the only way to really know anything about it.
Heuristic research is based on the concept of fusion with the object of study via total
immersion. This immersion allows one to explore the mystical aspect of the social
which sees it as a manifestation of the void. We say that because it is fundamentally
empty at its source, that is why it can accept the emergent event as the genuinely
new thing. If it was full of itself it could not entertain the new. The fact that the
source of the social is empty is exactly what it needs to be emergent at the same
time. Emptiness is the condition of emergence. So to the relation between the
emergent event and the situation where it arises must be one of interpenetration.
This is because the new thing reuses and reinvents the old turning it into a genuinely
new thing which is different from itself. It could only combine the new and old in a
novel way if the situation in which emergence occurs fundamentally interpenetrates
so everything is connected and reflecting everything else. Thus the emergent event
is a differing of the whole from itself made possible by its self identity via
difference. Only the interpenetrating thing can experience emergence and that
emergence must come out of the void. The nested intentionality of intersubjectivity
is the vehicle for this self-identity via difference to take place. The social can be the
same with itself, belonging together with itself. And through the reversibility it has
intervening between itself and itself it can realize the difference of the genuinely
emergent event and repattern itself. The social’s ability to reconstruct itself is a
wonderful thing. We need to dive deep into the nature of spacetime to understand
how the possibility of social machines are embedded within it. All embodiments
merely explore the possibilities already inherent in space time. Johannson says that
the infinity inherent in intentionality is different from that inherent in spacetime.
This is not true. The infinity inherent in intentionality is an inner possibility of the
398
infinity inherent in spacetime. Slowly we will show that this is true although we
must go through many stages to get to that point and we have not even begun that
journey that will occur in the second part of this essay. However, here we can
announce the result that all machines are embodiments and that embodiments are
wrinkles in spacetime exploring some of its possibilities. There are some very
special wrinkles two of which are the autopoietic system and the reflexive
autopoietic system. The autopoietic system is cognitive and living. The reflexive
autopoietic system is intentional and social. Here we also include the other four
approaches which include meaning generation, discrimination of discontinuities,
and the proactive production of synteheses. Taken together we can discriminate
very finely between the autopoietic and the reflexive autopoietic. The reflexive
autopoietic exhibits thought internally and nested intentional relations externally.
Thought is the means of articulating the network of external nested intentionalities.
Johannson ends his ontological analysis with the consideration of four models of
individual / society interaction. These were developed first by Roy Bhaskar. In
model one the individual creates society. In model two the society creates the
individual. Model three is a dialectic between the society and the individual such as
that proposed by Peter Berger. A fourth model is that these two strata are
independent of each other as ontological levels and yet interact with society
socializing the individual and with the individual reproducing and transforming
society. But the question becomes what is the societal matter of which the social
level is sustained as opposed to the individual level which is rooted in matter by the
attachment of the subject to the body. Here Johannson maintains that the social
matter is nested intentionality. And the two levels are interdependent because
intentionality is a vector in relation to the action of the body. They occupy the same
spacetime place at different ontological levels. To produce a social phenomenology
all we need to do is say that the structures on nested intentionality are prior to
anything at the level of the subject and his body. This means that the collective
body of the group is prior to the recognition of individual bodies of members. This
is because there is a social substance made out of rapport and resonance between
group members out of which the other levels of the phenomenal emergent hierarchy
differentiate. All we have to do is look at the development of the child to see that
this is true. They literally come out of the bodies of their parents and emerge as
social beings first who only later realize that they have separate bodies and separate
intentional structures. Not looking at human development is a big flaw in
Johannson’s arguments which stick with reified ideal subjectivities and do not
realize even the reality of Dasein beyond the illusory and nihilistic difference
399
between subject and object.
Before social matter there is the emptiness or interpenetration of the social origin
itself. This is the always already lost origin of society, or language, or customs, or
the economy, or the political system, etc. The basis of social matter are the
tendencies, proclivities, propensities, desires that appear as a category at the fourth
meta-level of Being. These dispositions combine to produce intentions. But
intentions are a separate category and as Johannson says tendencies and the
intentionality may point in different directions in relations to the same act. So
ultimately social matter exists at the fourth meta-level of being as the myriad
tendencies or desires which from which intentional vectors are produced through
vector addition. These tendencies are continuously being interpreted on the basis of
the four approaches and presented as unified summations of different kinds. The
primary social matter of desires or tendencies are in this way turned into secondary
processes which are built up as nested intentionalities, deep meanings, non-
nihilistic distinctions, and synthetic unities. This matter is then further reified as
tertiary processes into subjective intentions, diacritical significances, nihilistic
distinctions, and superficial glosses and abstractions. As we delve back into the
origin of the social which is by definition empty and yet interpenetrating emergent
events occur that destroy the reification and again unleash profound meanings,
unified intentions, distinctions that make a difference, and produce conceptual
syntheses. We need to become familiar with social matter again. We need to realize
that social phenomenology, hermeneutics, dialectics and structuralism is possible
only on the basis of Heuristic Research that has the potential to delve into the source
of the social which is also the source of the emergent.
All in all Johannson’s categories give us an amazing new perspective on ontology

and its relation to our social phenomenology (hermeneutics, dialectics, and
structuralism). He leads us step by step from spacetime to things and from things to
an understanding of the autopoietic and reflexive. What we wish to do is attempt to
ground the two ends of this argument, the social and spacetime in each other. If we
could do this then the argument becomes a circular network instead of a tree and so
we move to a deeper level of the understanding of manifestation. The social must be
embedded in spacetime. If we could show that then we would be in a position to
understand the inner necessity of the social and of the living/cognitive as the
substrata of the social. This would produce a completely grounded theory of
Reflexive Autopoietic systems. Not grounded in the sense of going back to first
principles but grounded in the sense that Rescher speaks of when he talks of
400
cognitive systematization. There networks are treated as a hermeneutic circle

instead as sets of first principles. Grounding is continued explication of inherent
relations between parts of the network. This work of grounding in the network
never comes to an end. Proofs are self-referential in that they cease when a circuit in
the network is proved. That circuit can be a ring of mutually existentially one-way
dependent nodes that produce circular features of mutually dependent arising.
These are autopoietic stabilities manifestation that separate primary from secondary
processes. Johannson has taken us to the point that we can now recognize our goal
which must be a derivation of the social from spacetime itself. When that is
achieved then embodiment will be complete and reflexive autopoietic systems will
be grounded in the foundation of embodiment even though no foundation in first
principles is possible. That foundation will depend on the discovery of stable co-
arising phenomena that appear to form rings out of networks of nodes.
6. Emergent Ontological Levels
Let us follow Igvar Johannson and say that there is a difference between a category
scheme and a theory of categories. Categories are themselves the highest concepts
which do not collapse into the unity of Conceptual Being. Different Category
schemes will recognize different ultimate categories and also will differentiate in
terms of the ways those ultimates are combined. The category theory must both
present the ultimate concepts but also say how they are related. Many traditional
category schemes only list the categories in a table and do not say how they
interrelate. A true theory must do both.
Our category theory does not strive for ultimate minimality. We do not just name
the entities that are fundamental and not say what their status of Being are. Instead
we build up step by step a picture of what a generic level in our hierarchy must look
like and then attempt to describe each level using the same template but using
different words for each level in order to capture the differences between the same
concept in the same position at different levels.
401
6.1. The complexity of a generic ontological level.
6.1.1. Energy Flows and Traces

Figure 81:
CHI
LI
Primary Process
We begin by asserting that every level in the ontological hierarchy can be seen as
differentiating Primary Process into two fundamental features. From the point of
view of causality these features are known as Yin and Yang. Yang is the unseen
causes which produce all the Yin or visible effects. From the point of view of
phenomenology we see another pair of opposites which are immediately
perceptible. The se are flow which is called by the Chinese “Chi” and the traces left
by that flow called “LI.” All phenomena which appear are differentiated into Chi
and Li. Through these phenomenal opposites which differentiate the Yin we are
able to see the Yang. The active causality of the Yang is seen in the movement of
the flow and the inner coherence of the cause is seen in the traces left by the
movement of the flow. This view is fundamentally different from from the view of
western science which does not openly to the study of unseen causes. In fact in
Western science it is only with the Quark that it is posited that the object cannot by
its nature appear. However, the present ontology does not strive to push the unseen
to the lowest level of primitive but asserts that it appears at every ontlogical level.
This unseeable aspect of manifestation is the advent of primary process. The action
of primary process on what appears occurs at the base of every ontological level.
402
We approach the Yang via manifesting Yin Chi and Yin Li. Both of these are
pointers toward the primary causality that lies beyond the overtly manifest. The
action of Chi and Li in relation to each other is the fundamental dynamism at every
level of the ontological hierarchy of emergent levels. The flow may be of energy or
information or some other “substance.” The embodiment is not as important. What
is important is the relation of the flow to traces. In the Western tradition the flow is
called Physis or Logos. Physis is the growth of things in nature. Logos is the
outpouring of talk within the human being. So there is a fundamental split in the
inward human flow of talk and the outward flow of nature as growth. But this split
is imposed upon the upwelling which is unified beyond the split between physis and
logos. The Chinese saw this unified primordial upwelling as the Tao (‘Dao’ in
current transliteration). That upwelling was seen from two different viewpoints. It
was seen as the upwelling itself called by the Chinese “Chi” and as the traces left by
the upwelling called “Li”. A good analogy is growth of a tree and the rings left in
the tree that records that growth. However, Li comes to mean the inner coherence of
what appears. In the West this is known as the Laws of nature because the
coherence of the physis is judged by the coherence of the logos. But because the
Chinese never split nature from human talk and are speaking about something more
primordial than both, what Ballard calls the “archaic,” this error of judging the
natural coherence on the basis of the coherence of talk is not made. Thus we know
that Chi and Li are merely descriptions of the same thing
6.1.2. The representation of the spacetime container.
On the basis of the identification of the two primary orthogonal ways of describing
the upwelling of primary process we move to the next layer of differentiation which
sees secondary processes. Secondary processes are located in spacetime at a place
which has a temporality associated with it. The place and temporality together form
the basis of an interval. The interval must have limits and so at this stage there is the
positing of the limit. Also we can say that there is the indicators of actuality which
are the incongruences or warpages in the spacetime as expressed as the temporal
palace. These four elements serve to allow us to differentiate secondary processes
form primary processes that can only really be described in terms of Chi and Li.
403
Figure 82:
temporality
how
limit
anomaly
place
CHI
LI
6.1.3. The Fragments of Being

Figure 83:
dualistic
difference
phase chiasm
dual anti-dual
transcendence
hinge
CHI
LI
Functioning within the strata of the ontological level (which ever one it is) must be
the movement of transcendence or Being. Being has its sub-structure which is the
made up of the meta-levels of Being. Thus we see that the representation of the
container spacetime is the stage for the operation of the meta-levels of Being
working together to produce manifestation at that ontological level. If that
mechanism was not there at every level then these would not be ontological levels.
Basically this involves the projection of a dualistic difference at that level of Being
404
and the positing of a transcendental movement across that dualistic difference.

These may be thought of as control structures. On either side of the dualistic
difference is the dual and its anti-dual. The dual and the anti-dual are present-at-
hand representatives of Pure Presence. At the level of Pure Presence the dual and
anti-dual are symbols. The movement across the dualistic difference is a process
with the ready-to-hand modality representing Process Being. At the level of Process
Being the dual and the anti-dual are seen as signs. At the level of Hyper Being
where the modality is in-hand there is a different kind of connection between the
dual and anti-dual that sees them as traces instead of signs. Derrida calls this kind of
connection the hinge. It sees the dual and the anti-dual as being hinged to each other
and thus connected by specific kinds of breaks which are part of their natural
complex. At the Wild Being level we see the hinging as taking place in an interval
of reversibility. Here there is no trace of the symbol, sigh, or trace any more. We are
talking instead about the actual warping of the spacetime container. Each of these
four kinds of Being work together to produce manifestation as we see it in the
Western worldview. We must represent them at each ontological level in their
dynamic interaction in order for the ontological level to represent the manifestation
of the secondary process that has been differentiated by the last level in our generic
model of levels.
405
6.1.4. States of Affairs

Figure 84:
idea
essence
properties
noematic substance
nucleus
CHI
LI
The next level of our generic model of an ontological level shows us how states of
affairs are generated out of the confluence of the fragments of Being. Here we
follow Husserl and differentiate the noematic nucleus, essence and idea. The
noematic nucleus is the combination of noema and noesis in the state of affairs.
When we perceive the correlate we can vary it around its noematic nucleus through
our behavior toward the correlate. The noematic nucleus is the complex
interrelation of aspects, moments, sensations, thoughts that arise in our interaction
with the correlate. But these must be differentiated from the essence of the object.
The essence is the core of the noematic nucleus that under variation remains the
same. We have according to Husserl direct apprehension of the essence beyond our
perception of the noematic nucleus. The essence is our direct intuition of kindness
of the correlate. Through the essence we get our first real look at the relations
between properties and substance within the correlate. You will notice a small flag
beside the essence. The flag pole stands for the substance and the flag itself stands
for the properties that are connected to the substance and to each other. There
should really be a streamer for each independent property. There is always only one
substance that is connected to a set of properties revealed by studying the essence of
406
any given correlate. Over the essence arches the gloss of the idea. The idea is an
abstraction that captures part of the relations between the properties and substance
found in the thing. Induction and deduction operate between the noematic nucleus
and the idea. Essence perception is a completely different way of relating to the
object which is similar to what Peirce called abduction. It is a direct relation to the
core of the correlate without the interference of logic or reason which directly
apprehends the kindness of the correlate.
6.1.5. The projection level
Figure 85:
Level meta
correlate
projection
subject correlate
CHI
LI
Finally we see above the gloss of ideation the projection of the correlate by the
subject. This is the basic differentiation of the intentional morphe at that particular
ontological level. We see here the relation between the correlate and the meta-
correlate and the identification of the level.
6.2. Great Ultimate or Primary Process
Now we begin again to look at the relation of the levels to each other. At the basis is
what the Chinese have always called The Great Ultimate which is the combination
of Yin and Yang into a whole. This is the ultimate image of Primary Process. In
relation to Yin and Yang’s mutual interpenetration in all phenomena we affirm the
principle of “no secondary causation.” This means that there is only one source of
causation for all phenomena. This is the fundamental basis of unification of all
407
phenomena. As we look at phenomena we see it as first and foremost Primary

Process which reflects this unity but this is impossible for us to comprehend
directly. Thus we immediately break that down into dualities. The basic dualities
are Yin and Yang. Everything that appears is Yin. It is moved by unseen causes that
differentiate the primary causation. What we see are a secondary differentiation of
all the caused Yin movements of the phenomenal into Chi and Li. Through the
interaction of flow and traces we see the Yang unseen causes and through the Yang
unseen causes we get indications of the Single Source of all causation. Thus our
ontology realizes that everything in existence points to this deep unity of causation.
Primary Process is an upwelling from that source of unity. Our approach of
Heuristic research is the means of appreciating that continual pointing of everything
toward the underlying unity of experience. Heuristic research abides in its object of
research and does not treat that as other than itself. As such it allows deep resources
of the mutual participation in Primary Process of both the subject and object to
manifest. Only Heuristic Research that gives up distancing allows these resources to
appear. Since the deep unity of causation lies beyond the void we see these
resources appear step by step through which ever ontological level we project on
the phenomena. The projection of ontological levels is in fact a negotiation between
the observer and the phenomena under observation. It is a dance of mutual
constitution and unfolding. But if we watch the unfolding we see that it goes
through specific stages which we have attempted to partially capture by
distinguishing parallel elements of all the ontological levels. Since the Chi and Li
are the first moments of the Yin phenomena that appear this is where our
differentiation begins. Ultimately the full differentiation should work back toward
understanding the Yang unseen causes beyond the phenomenal and through them to
attempt to understand the unity of all causation. But whether this completion is
realized we still need to start with Chi and Li as our fundamental distinction of the
phenomenal. Through that we can have access via the Yin to the Yang and attempt
to get a glimpse of the Great Ultimate which is the unity of Yin and Yang. We
should be careful to realize that Yang always refers to unseen causation and Yang
things are only so by analogy not in reality. The Chinese view is the nature is a
combination of seen and unseen causes interpenetrated. Thus the traditional
Chinese view realizes interpenetration as the mixture of Heaven and Earth. This is
contrast as we said before with the void of no form out of which all forms arises.
There is in this view no realm of Being between the void and things as exists in the
Western view. We project this layer upon the unfolding of Secondary processes
from the Primary process. It is a fundamental error1 intrinsic to the Western
worldview that continues to project a subtle clinging over the face of all existence.
408
Our ontology aligns with this error in order to show the relation of the Western
ontology to the anti-ontology of the void. In this way we hope to make it clear how
things manifest in the Western tradition through the meta-levels of fragmented of
Being.
6.3. Ontological Levels
We now trace the unfolding of the net of distinctions which have already been
alluded to at each ontological level. Here we have attempted to give a unique name
to each aspect of the correlate at each ontological level. This is difficult and in the
end imperfect because our language does not support this kind of naming naturally.
Sometimes we have to settle for a phrase or a neologism in order to fill a space for
which no name comes immediately to mind. The point of doing this is to give the
reader some concept of the difference between levels. The same aspects appear on
each level in a parallel structure. The ones named are not all that could be named. In
fact each ontological level supports a myriad of aspects. But by attempting to
produce a series of parallel structures we are able to show the ontological structure
of the levels. It is this ontological structure that is of interest here. We differentiate
it from the phenomenal structure which Johannson bases his ontological
investigation. The phenomenal structure does not allow a deep investigation into the
interface between different levels of process. We are especially interested in making
the interface between primary and secondary process visible so we can deal
explicitly with the emergent epiphany of secondary process from out of the primary
process.
By using this technique we can look at the differentiation of any correlate within an
ontological level and also at the cascades of the same aspects through all the
ontological levels. Each aspect at a particular ontological level is emergent and thus
has different qualities as we traverse the ladder of ontological levels. But unlike the
phenomenal hierarchy we are able to look at the unfolding of a particular aspect and
get a view of the unity of all the different ontological levels which is generally
hidden in a phenomenal emergent hierarchy. Thus what is hidden in the
phenomenal hierarchy is readily visible in the ontological hierarchy. On the other
hand, what is invisible in the ontological hierarchy is the phenomena itself. This is
the difference between the ontological and the ontic. Of course science is concerned
almost entirely with the ontic and ignores the necessity of constructing a Formal
Ontology in order to elucidate the ontological. But this only means that the work of
1.See my The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void: Speculations in an Emergent Onto-mythology. (Manuscript)
409
producing the Formal Ontology is continuously being done covertly in every

scientific presentation. Here we reverse the precedence and call for the development
of an ontological hierarchy to complement the phenomenal so we can see what we
are projecting and differentiate that from the ontic itself. This must be the work of a
General Theory of Worlds which does not wish to remain naive, not knowing what
it is projecting as opposed to what is there implicit in the phenomena. Husserl did
not make this distinction and so the mechanism of his philosophical apparatus is
suffused throughout his description of the phenomena. Here we separate these
concerns and give the mechanical structure of ideational projection in a separate
moment of our philosophy. This makes it possible for us really to go back to the
phenomena itself because we know what we are projecting upon the phenomena to
a greater degree of accuracy. This means we are less likely to identify something of
our ontological mechanism with the phenomena itself. But as Husserl points out
with his distinction between noesis and noema both of which contain intentionality
and content mixed there is never a perfect separation of concerns.
6.3.1. Splitting
Let us first consider splitting of the Li from the Chi. Li and Chi appear at every
level. Thus we obtain two cascades of aspects of Li and Chi at each level. We can
look at the table taking the tokens of Li and Chi at a give level or we can look
explicitly at a single cascade or we can consider the relation between cascades.
Thus using a matrix of the aspects of ontological levels is a very powerful tool for
building up a picture of the aspects through which we view the phenomena at a
particular level. Now our choice of terms belies a certain interpretation of the action
of the higher level terms such as Li and Chi on the different ontological levels.
Different ontologists would probably have different interpretations of these actions.
Also the choice of which aspects to emphasize are a question of aesthetics and also
individual concern. This is not to mention the fact that the choice of words to
represent the various aspects of the ontological levels is a matter of personal choice.
Thus we are not saying that this set of aspects and their cascades through the
ontological levels is THE only way of conceptualizing the levels. It is an example
that makes clear what we mean by ontological levels and how they can make
explicit our assumptions about the workings of manifestation in a level ontology.
Here we see a cascade of Chi in terms of flow, process, dynamism, drift, trend,
confluence, flux and upwelling. There is a parallel cascade of Li in seen in terms of
striations, grain, channels, play, torque, coherence, intrinsics, quintessence. These
410
two cascades run parallel and thus reflect off of each other giving specific
interpretations to how these two aspects manifest at the different levels and also
giving us a level specific vocabulary with which to speak and think about the
aspects at that level. At the primitive level Chi is flow and Li are striations or
undulations of the flow. At the Object level Chi is a process and Li appears as grain.
Now where primitives flow with undulations to produce patterns forms appear as
processes that have a granularity. The granularity within the process is irreducible
and makes the process quantal in nature. Thus we do not have half a cell. We have
whole cells which function. If you cut them in half they stop functioning. Thus the
cell is at a certain granularity within the organic process. At the system level we get
a different perspective because in a system multiple processes cooperate and
perhaps form self-organizing hypercycles. Thus the system exhibits a dynamism of
different processes interacting. As such the system exhibits the channeling of
processes by other processes. This can be seen as control or as mutual dependent
arising but the point is that processes frame other processes and as such give
structure to the dynamism of the system. At the meta-system level there are
multiple systems co-existing. Here Chi changes into drift and Li transforms into
play. The systems relation to each other within the meta-system is different from
that of sub-systems. Sub-systems are the differentiation of the interaction of
processes to lower and lower levels. This is the same as the decomposition of
objects into lower and lower levels of primitive or sub-objects (parts). When we
decompose within a level we are not leaving that level. Each level is emergent in
relation to the others so the particularity of the meta-system is that within it systems
act more or less independently rather than in a channeled fashion. Thus the whole
set of interacting systems exhibit a drift in relation to each other as they form an
eco-meta-system. In the drift of the systems in relation to each other we discern the
play within the systems mutual relations. Here systems are seen as relatively
independent entities that have rights and responsibilities within an overall context
of mutual interaction. The systems relations will display drift in relation to each
other and exhibit the play that exists in the meta-system for different possible
relations between the systems. When we move to the level of a domain we suddenly
see that the sets of drifts make up trends and the combinations of plays give us
specific torque. The trends can only be seen by taking a domain view that looks
over several meta-systems and the play also does not appear as torque unless more
than one meta-system is taken into account. A torque is a specific coherence of the
plays in the meta-systems. A trend is a specific cohesion of drifts. In a world the set
of torques become coherences whereas the set of trends become confluences or
convergencies. Moving up another level we see that in the universe there is flux and
411
intrinsics. The flux is the idealization of the transformative moment within the
universe. The flux makes visible the intrinsic character of the universe. Moving up
the final level we see that the flux is an aspect of the upwelling from the primary
process of the universe and that the intrinsics of many possible universes may be
spoken about as a quintessence. The quintessence is the inner reality the myriad
universes that emanate from primary process. It is the principle that Lo says is one.
But we see that one through the upwelling of the many possible universes and their
differentiation into worlds and domains, etc. In this way we can see that the
cascades of Chi and Li give us a very specific idea of how these aspects of the
correlates are differentiated through our level ontology. We get a grid that allows us
to look at each emergent level and the relations between aspects not only at that
level but seen through the whole set of levels.
Table 8: Splitting
correlate Chi Li
Primitive flow striations
Object process grain
System dynamism channels
Meta-system drift play
Domain trend torque
World confluence, con- coherence, inher-
vergence ence
Universe flux, afluxion intrinsic, asymp-
tote
Pluriverse upwelling quintessence
6.3.2. Embodiment
Now we know that Johannson takes as primary the existence of spacetime. So at we

treat where and when as the aspects that come into sight next. But we do not treat
them alone. We are primarily interested in embodiment and as such we want to
understand how embodiment interacts with where and when. We posit that they
interact in terms of edges and dirt within the constraints of which the embodiment
functions as a how. This will be clearer if we look at the Primitive level all together.
Here we see a movement in a neighborhood at a moment. That movement has a
limit and has to contend with grit which impedes it and is the indication that we are
speaking of a real embodied movement and not an ideal movement. All embodied
movements deal with friction. The limit and the grit are the internal and external
constraints on the how of embodiment. Lets go up a level and look at the Object.
412
Here there is an action in a place which takes a duration. At the object level there is
always the possibility of some flaw: a miss step, a slip of the tongue. Such errors in
action are the opposite of the possibility of broken actions which are discontinuous.
But action itself is quantal as are movements when you take into account the
granularity of spacetime. That granularity shows up as the neighborhood-moment
or the place-duration which does not see a pure idealized continuum of spacetime.
Instead we see that quantum effects occur at the macro-level and posit that
everything else is an idealization. If we again go up a level we see that actions taken
together appear as behaviors that occur in a context over an interval of time.
Behaviors may display various kinds of non-linearity. Instead of seeing pure breaks
we see a continuity breaking off and then perhaps resuming after some gap. At the
lower level we could not discern the gap only the pure break. Now we see the gap. It
appears within the context of system performance. These non-linearities in
dynamical system functioning stand opposite the possibility of perturbations which
disturb the system from the outside and can be the source of the non-linearities. But
some systems have non-linearities built into their functioning from the first.
Dissipative systems are such systems as are autopoietic and reflexive autopoietic
systems. The study of non-linear systems has become a whole branch of science
which deals with complexity and chaos. The dissipative system produces a non-
linearity at its border with the environment across which entropy moves. If it moves
inward it produces a catastrophe within the system. If it moves outward it produces
a catastrophe within the environment but allows the dissipative system to appear to
become more ordered. The autopoietic system preserves the non-linearity at its
boundary but adds an insensitivity to perturbations from the outside. The set of non-
linearities inside the boundary (it’s organization) are preserved as its order at the
cost of this insensitivity to the outside perturbations from the environment. The
reflexive autopoietic system is not homeostatic but heterodynamic. Thus it operates
very far from equilibrium beyond the disequilibrium necessary to the dissipative
system and the autopoietic system. In the reflexive autopoietic system the non-
linearities of its organization and its perturbations become a single thing. It perturbs
its own internal non-linearities in order to reorganize itself. This is the special
nature of the reflexive autopoietic system that allows it to exhibit learning. We can
see perturbations internalized and becoming the basis of new organizations. This is
the essence of the emergent event. Emergent events are merely the internalization of
coherent sets of perturbations called anomalies. This internalization causes all the
internal non-linearities to be reorganized into a new organizational pattern of within
the boundary of the reflexive autopoietic system. Only reflexive autopoietic
systems can exhibit this kind of revolutionary re-organization as self-imposed
413
adjustment perhaps in anticipation. By specifying the dissipative, autopoietic and

reflexive system we have already begun to move up the ladder to the meta-
systematic level. The dissipative system is already a meta-system. It has its
dissipative regime within a particular timespan within which it has a repertory of
behaviors. It experiences within that regime external constraints and anomalies. The
dissipative system can only produce its ordering within a very particular
constraining environment. Anomalies tend to destroy that environment in which the
dissipative system can produce order. This will cause the regime to breakdown.
Regime covers a spatial region and means a particular setup that must be
maintained. Within the regime the repertory of actions must respond in such a way
that it keeps the regime going. As long as the regime is in force there is a definite
timespan being produced. The dissipative system spans time by producing a
coherent flow of negative entropy. If this flow reverses then the timespan ends
along with the regime in a catastrophe. This occurs when the anomaly is to
devastating for the boundary to be maintained and the constraints of the
environment of the dissipative system are violated. As we move up a level to the
Domain we see that there is a mode which occurs during an era in a situation. The
limits of that situation are a border and the problem is called weirdness. Here we
can speak of the Autopoietic system which exists as a domain which is closed over
against the dissipative system which is more or less a fortuitus set of correlated
circumstances. The autopoietic system makes moves to maintain itself through its
self-organizing activities. The autopoietic system has different modes of operation
that are internal to its functioning and not necessarily visible to the outside world. A
particular input may come while the autopoietic system is in a particular mode
where its repertory has changed and so the response will be different from what is
expected. Autopoietic systems have a situation to which the are responding or not
as the case may be. A situation is only such if it can be ignored. The autopoietic
system is good at ignoring its situation. The operation of the autopoietic systems
mode may be seen as an era. During a particular era the mode will give a certain
repertory of behaviors and during a different era the mode will be different. This is
what allow selective action to operate. The autopoietic system selects its modality
and thus selects what it will and will not respond to. The situation changes as the
autopoietic system enters different modalities. These changes of the situation may
not be overt but something the autopoietic system knows about itself that others
find out about by trial and error pinging the autopoietic system for a response. The
autopoietic system, being turned inward, has as its major constraint its own border.
It sees all perturbations as weirdness, which is to say something to ignore and to
react to as little as possible. Weirdness is a set of interacting anomalies which is not
414
sustained. Strangeness which appears at the next level is sustained weirdness. The
autopoietic system has no reason to remember coherences of anomalies. It is
reacting to individual sets of anomalies as isolated cases and not attempting to see a
pattern in the anomalies. At the next level up the reflexive autopoietic system that
projects a world. Intrinsic to the world is alterity or otherness. Otherness is based on
the observation of sustained coherences of anomalies. At the level of world there is
a schesis within a realm during an epoch. The schesis is “disposition or habitude of
mind.”1 Only the reflexive autopoietic system has such a disposition or habitude of
mind where mind is the result of reflexive activity. However, this word emphasizes
the aspect of embodiment from the Greek schesis, condition, from schein, echein, to
hold: giving condition, disposition, habitude [considered obsolete usage]. We will
revive this usage in order to emphasize embodiment within a realm for an epoch in
which strangeness as sustained patterns of anomalies allow us to see the Other.
Only the reflexive autopoietic system can see the other. This is one of its defining
attributes. The autopoietic system ignores the other. But the reflexive system is
what it is in relation to the Other. It can not only maintain strangeness in it’s gaze
but can incorporate strangeness into itself as the emergent event. Therefore its
disposition is a posture directly taken in relation to strangeness. We can think of the
realm and the epoch in terms of the barbarian tyrant. The tyrant has his dominion
and the time of his reign is seen as an epoch like the reigns of the Chinese Emperor.
We know when texts were written because the characters that make up then name of
the emperor were substituted for by other characters. The name of the emperor
could not be manifest because he was the hidden one in the forbidden city who’s
actions were seen in the harmony of the heavens and the earth during his reign. In
this way we can think of the reflexive system as producing a spacetime field which
bears its own stamp. Eras have arbitrary endpoints where as Epochs have definite
beginnings and ends. The realm of the Emperor has a definite extent of dominance
unlike the situation which has only fuzzy edges. The reflexive system knows its
own limits as delimited by otherness and experienced in terms of strangeness. If we
go up another level we enter the abstraction of the universe which we project
beyond our world. Its edges are the unthinkable and its dirt are the singularities to
which the laws of physics do not apply. Here the reflexive autopoietic dissipative
system appears to have a position in either timespace or spacetime. That position is
always in relation to the position of the singularity that violates the physical laws
through its unthinkableness. These projections into an objective universe may lead
us to believe that there this is a gloss and not real. But we live in a worldview where
1.Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
415
it is position in spacetime that is designated as real. At the level of Pluriverse we

encounter the matrix in which spacetime and timespace merge. We can only say
that the reflexive autopoietic dissipative system dwells within the matrix. The
matrix is shot through and through with otherness. It is full of unknowables which
when we try to process them in the known universe become incommensurable with
what is known. Thus the pluriverse is a limit for the whole set of cascading aspects.
Our dwelling in the pluriverse cannot be reduced to a position and the position is
merely the lowest common denominator of our schesis. Aristotle’s categories
originally contained these postural aspects which have been rationalized away as
not being fundamental. Instead we see posture within our own realm and during our
own epoch as fundamental. That can be collapsed down to a position within the
universe or a exploded outward into a dwelling in the multiverse.
This level of embodiment, you will notice underlies the projection of Being which
occurs in the next table. This is why we will return in the second part of this essay to
the level of embodiment within the matrix as a fundamental level at which to carry
out our analysis of the relation between reflexive autopoietic dissipative systems to
general systems theory. However, for completeness we must consider the other
higher levels more removed from the workings of primary process.
Table 9:
edge dirt where how when

P limit grit neigh- move- momen
borhood ment t
O discontinu- flaw place action dura-
ity tion
S non-linear- perturba- context behav- interval
ity tion ior
M constraint anomaly regime reper- timespa
tory n
D border weird- situation mode era
ness
W alterity; strange- realm schesis epoch
otherness ness
U unthinkable singular- con- position correla-
ity tainer tive
space- timespa
time ce
P incommen- unknow- matrix dwell- matrix
surate able ing
416
6.3.3. Fragments of Being
Next we look at the cascades associated with the articulation of the four kinds of
Being. Here the thing exists in the present-at-hand modality of Pure Presence. It has
an anti-thing associated with it which exists across some demarcation of difference.
In order for the thing to cross this demarcation it must change in some respect. The
change is a process of transformation and is governed by the ready-to-hand mode of
Process Being. This change can be seen as either a connection between forms which
gives us a glimpse of the depth of the things. In this case it is an manifestation of
Hyper Being and the in-hand modality. Or on the other hand the change can be seen
as an opening up of a space between the things in which case the space normally has
some kind of sub-structure of its own which is called by Merleau-Ponty the
reversibility. Here we will refer to the warpages of the clearing opened up between
the things a nexus. It is governed by Wild Being and the out-of-hand modality.
These four kinds of Being are a series of meta-levels that ends in unthinkability.
They describe the workings of manifestation from the point of view of Being which
is a subtle clinging projected over all existence. Every emergent event must traverse
these four meta-levels to be called genuine. Emergence can occur at any of the
ontological levels. And here is where we find out how fundamental the reflexive
autopoietic dissipative (rad) system is because we posit that these levels of Being
occur at every level in our ontological hierarchy. So although emergences can only
appear to the rad system we posit fragments of Being operating at every level in the
hierarchy. This is because the rad system is projecting the entire hierarchy and can
see emergences at any of those levels even though it only functions at higher levels.
So let us briefly go through the various levels of the operation of the meta-levels of
Being.
At the Primitive layer there is the particle which has an anti-particle. There is a
distinction between them which is crossed by a change. The particle and the anti-
particle can be seen as the same by considering them as being related by a joint
which when flexed in one way gives the particle and when flexed the other way
gives the anti-particle. In this way both are seen as merely the same thing rotated
about some symmetry. Between the particles there is an opening which as its nexus
a fold. The fold is the opacity in the opening. Each clearing must have an opaque
nexus. Clearing and nexus together is the opposite of the marker of depth which in
this case is the joint. These two open up the difference between the primitives. The
change is the actualization of difference through an operation of some type. The
particles are present-at-hand. The actualizing a difference through a change, which
417
is in this case making a distinction transforms the particle into the anti-particle and
the change falls under the ready-to-hand. When we go into the change and realize
the symmetries involved we see the joints which are articulated and which by their
nature cause the change when actuated. This is a manifestation of Hyper Being and
the in-hand modality. But we can look at the clearing between the particles instead
and realize that instead of a joint connecting them there is really a warpage of the
neighborhood and moment which produces the difference between the particle and
anti-particle. Within that clearing between the two there is a nexus of reversibility
which in this case is a fold. By moving through the nexus of reversibility we
transform from one particle to its anti-particle. This is like the inner dimension of
the joint. The joint is a clearing plus a reversibility. The joint is revealed by the
appearance of the duality of particle / anti-particle in relation to distinction and
change. The joint combines the two particles into a single thing which also
internalizes distinction and change. This one thing the joint then has the dimensions
of the clearing and reversibility as the way it produces difference within itself.
Now we can take the same analysis up to the object level. Here the object is first
seen as a form or outline. There is a difference that makes a difference between the
outline and other things. The transformation of one form into another occurs across
this significant difference. Here the joint becomes a hinge. The difference between
a joint and a hinge is that in the later you can see the inner workings. The opening
becomes a spacing and the fold a chiasm. We can see the inner workings in a
spacing because the spacing allows greater articulation. The spacing here is a
perceptual spacing -- a making room for something. That something is the
reversible aspects of the chiasm. Again the form and anti-form is present-at-hand.
The significant difference and transformation introduce the aspects of Process
Being. From the perspective of depth the form and anti-form are one thing with a
hinge between them in the sense described by Derrida in Grammatology which
relates to the in-hand modality. However, they are also two things which have a
field between them. That field has its nexus are of the out-of-hand modality and the
field and the nexus together make up the inner dimension of the hinge.
Moving up a level we see that for systems we no longer have particles or forms as
concrete things but now we have stable states. There is a boundary between states
and a transition between states. When we look at the set of states and transitions as
a system we can derive the structure of that system as a network of connections
between states through transitions which we can represent as a state machine. Since
state vectors list the state in which an event occurs and the state to which the state
418
machine will move we can see that the vectors are like a hinge or joint which unifies
the states into a coherent pattern. On the other hand we can view the state machine
as a phase space in which all the states of the system represent points in a
multidimensional space. The dynamism of the system can be see as the trace of the
systems changes as it moves through its various possible states. When the system
becomes excited then these possible states will bifurcate multiple times as the
system tends toward chaos. The bifurcation is the point of reversibility within the
clearing of the phase space. The system state is what appears to us as present-at-
hand. The transitions across state boundaries is in the province of the ready-to-hand.
The structure of the state machine which describes these transitions between states
holds both the to and from states together to form a hinge that binds states together.
This hinge has the in-hand modality and provides us with the structure of the
system. The phase space is the clearing in which the system is actualized and it
contains the nexus of bifurcations as the system becomes excited and tends toward
chaos. These tow together have an out-of-hand modality.
When we move up again to the meta-system level we see that the thing is now the
system. In the meta-system various systems exist together in a mutual regime. The
difference between systems within the meta-system is called by Derrida differAnce.
It is a differing and deferring in which each system acts as a supplement to all the
other systems. The movement between one system and another is called a meta-
system transition. This kind of transition causes one regime to cease and a new
regime to begin for the system involved. This meta-system transition gives us a
glimpse at the deep structure which underlies the two regimes of a single system or
between two co-systems within the same meta-system. We might say that a meta-
system in the first case is temporal and in the second case is spatial. Of course meta-
systems can be both so that different systems at different locations transform into
each other. This is one way to see an autopoietic system or a self-generative system.
In order to produce the same system it must first instantiate the copy in a different
place in spacetime. The composite meta-system transition which is both for the
same system across time and toward another system in space has a composite deep-
structure as well. This means that the deep structure governs both the diachronic
and synchronic aspects of the system transformations. The deep-structure
determines the hinges that connect the different systems or different regimes of the
same system. They are structural descriptions of the mappings across the
boundaries of differAnce. Meta-systems have a clearing within them that has the
quality of elasticity and nexus of resonance between systems contained within the
meta-system. Elasticity has to do with the variations in meta-system
419
transformations and resonance has to do with the coordination of dynamisms in

different systems. The elasticity of the meta-system shows up in the adaptability of
the systems to each other.
Going up the to the next ontological level we reach the stage of the domain. Here
we no longer see individual systems but only categories of systems. Systems of a
particular type are grouped together and seen in a similar light. Within a domain
there is a horizon within which systems of a certain type arise. Changes in
categories are revolutions. They are changes in what arises from the horizon.
Through them we see the core features of a certain type of system. The clearing
between categories of systems may be called a slippage and the nexus might be
called a congruence. Categories of systems are very stable. Between categories of
systems there is some slippage in the sense that sometimes our categories are not in
direct congruence because systems of different types will share features so that
some systems become hard to classify. This is the work of systematics and ecology
to attempt to make the categorization of systems congruent. Sometimes multiple
categorizations must be developed and no one set accounts for all the shared
features. Congruence is were the category system is aligned with the nature of the
systems covered. Slippage is where the category system breaks down. Complete
recategorizations are conceptual revolutions via paradigm changes. The categories
are present at hand while the movement of systems across the horizons are
governed by the ready-to-hand. The core of the category system is under the in-
hand modality. The slippage between categories and the congruence between
categories reflect the out-of-hand modality.
At the next level is the we find the world. Worlds contain domains as disciplines.
Instead of horizons there are groups of interacting horizons I have termed multi-
horizons for lack of a better name. The crossing of a multi-horizon is an act of
transcendence. The opposite of this transcendence in the place of the deep structure
is pure immanence. The clearing between disciplines may be thought of in terms of
displacements where the same phenomena in different disciplines is treated
differently. The nexus between disciplines may be seen as synchroniety.
Synchroniety is the exact overlapping of different sets of displacements so that
unexpected meta-congruencies occur. Displacements are the result of cumulations
of slippages. These displacements are seen as distortions produced by the
unconscious as pure immanence right under the nose of dominating transcendence.
It is like the southern speech which was the result of the children being brought up
by slaves. What was the unconscious of the southern society caused linguistic
420
displacements that no one was about to admit to publicly. So it is with all dualistic
relations where the master becomes the slave and the slave becomes the master
implicitly. This master-slave reversal was pointed out by Hegel. Immanence hides
within the multiple horizons and in their inner relations to each other which cannot
be explicated directly. You can only shift from one horizon to another so that within
a multi-horizon the immanent is always hiding behind the horizons you are not in at
the moment. When you shift to that new horizon then you find immanence is hiding
behind another new horizon. It is an endless shell game. The discipline as a whole
as a combination of domains appears to be present at hand. The multi-horizons and
the transcendence of them is ready to hand. Pure immanence appears as in-hand.
The relation between displacement and synchroniety strikes us as out of hand.
Figure 86:
COSMOS
BEING4
WORLD
BEING3
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
BEING2
FORMAL SYSTEM
BEING1
object
path of the emerging
object as it comes into r
figure
↑
existence.
emphasize point
de-emphasize
•
view
grasp
subject
operative
bearing gestalt
background
•
encompassing show hide
dasein
shifting gestalt
in-operative
gestalt
emergence
remember of the unexpected
Recollection
•
forget imagine
id
(unconscious)
always already lost
c
Primal Scene
the other
origin & ends
bind
determination
• pure
alterity
unbind
freedom
THE IMPOSSIBLE
ABYSS of GROUNDLESSNESS
Ontological Levels of Fragmented Being
421
Moving yet to a higher octave we see that disciplines combine to produce science in
general. We see difference in the borders between disciplines. The movement
across those borders is and example of will to power or dominance over nature. The
depth of science verses anti-science appears in the lacunae between phenomenal
emergent levels. The clearing appears as the distancing we have already mentioned
that attempts to produce an objective universe and the nexus is the
interdisciplinarity of shared beliefs between different disciplines. Interdisciplinarity
is tantamount to intersubjective agreement and shared beliefs. Heuristic Research
stands in the place of anti-science. It is a discipline that is by definition non-
scientific because it is subjectively based by designed. But Heuristic Research
arises out of the failure of objective disciplines to actually account for and unlock
their phenomena of study without producing nihilistic results. Dominance or will to
power arising out of the dualisms ultimately stumbles on the lacunae between
phenomenally emergent levels that are irreducible. Meeting irreducibility there is a
recoil because it is a barrier that cannot be breached by any type of distancing. It
appears as the basis for the cutting up of the disciplines so that inter-disciplinarity
reinforces these lacunae in phenomena. It is little talked about but the emergent
phenomenal levels as irreducible ontological categories pose a real limitation to
science. It meets its nemesis in the phenomena itself which is irreducible. These
lacunae are intrinsic collections of pure immanence that cannot be exorcised from
reductivist science without doing violence to science itself. So here within science
we meet the actual manifestation of the limits of our universe. They are not at the
limits of our telescopes and microscopes. Instead it is in the lacunae between
emergent phenomenal levels. This is the border of the pluriverse within the compass
of the universe.
At the next level up we reach what is called the pluriverse or the realm of all
possible universes. We see the difference between universes as the edges of the
universe we know. Not the macro-scopic edges or the quantum granularity but in
the lacunae between emergent levels. Out of these lacunae we can imagine other
universes with different emergent levels arising. The depth of the pluiverse is called
ultimate reality and meaning. The clearing between universes are their possible
range of variability and the nexus is the warpages in timespace. Each universe
presents us with its own warpage within the constraints of its own phenomenal
emergent levels. Within the pluriverse there is a constant upwelling of universes.
That upwelling is the locus for the discovery of ultimate reality and meaning. We
imagine an uncountable variety of different universes being produced with wild
abandon each one has its own warpages that are the embodiment of beings within
422
any one of its universes. We do not think there is only one song (uni-verse) that is
sung. Instead we imagine multiple songs even though we can only hear one.
With this we have stepped through the whole set of markers that represent the
fragmentation of Being. These six cascades form a layer within which the drama of
dualistic transcendence is acted out at each level where a line is drawn and then
crossed, like the game of children who stand with chips on their shoulders. G.
Spencer-Brown has formalized this process of making distinctions and crossing
them as the simplest possible formal system. We have seen it operating at each of
our ontological levels. It is all based on the assumption of ontological monism, the
concept that transcendence grounds itself. We have seen in all cases the line crossed
and the crossing of the line are opposites bound together. They are joined in the
postulation of depth via a joint or hinge or whatever that allows both sides of the
difference appear to be the same, belonging together. We have seen also that
another way of looking at the dualistic opposition is to see the clearing between the
two contestants and the nexus of reversibility between them. This is kind of like the
depth being turned inside out. All this is a peculiar structure posited by the
Fragmentation of Being into meta-levels..
Table 10: Fragmentation of Being
thing dis- alter- depth clear- nexus

tinc- ation ing
tion
P particle dif- change joint open- fold
fer- ing
ence
O form; dif- trans- hinge spac- chiasm
outline fer- form- ing
ence2 ation
S state boun transi- struc- phase bifur-
dary tion ture space cation
M system dif- meta- deep elastic- reso-
ferAn system struc- ity nance
ce transi- ture
tion
D cate- hori- revolu- core slip- con-
gory zon tion page gruenc
e
W disci- multi- tran- imma- dis- syn-
pline hori- scen- nence place- chroni-
zon dence ment ety
423
Table 10: Fragmentation of Being
thing dis- alter- depth clear- nexus

tinc- ation ing
tion
U science bor- domi- lacu- dis- inter-
der nance; nae tancing disci-
betwe will to betwee plinar-
en power n emer- ity
disci- gent
plines levels
P uni- edges emer- ulti- range time-
verse of gent mate of vari- space
uni- uni- reality ability warp
verse verses and
mean-
ing
424
6.3.4. Ideation (note: difference & distinction switched, alteratin also added)
The next set of interrelated aspects have to do with ideation and its projection based
on the substructure of Being. This set of levels is very important because it takes us
from the channelizing of manifestation in the western worldview to the
channelizing of thought. Thought is a special case of manifestation which is an
internal target of consciousness. Dennet calls these Joycian machines that have
streams of consciousness. He posits that ideation is a serialization within the
multiprocessor architecture of the brain. Goertzel picks up this idea and uses it to
good use within his Chaotic Logic. He posits that the brain feeds its own processed
material back to itself as perceptions and thus produces recursive chains which are
independent streams in consciousness. This is an intriguing concept but we need to
add to it that it occurs on multiple ontological levels and is nothing other than
ideation, or the production of illusory continuities. This production follows the form
that Husserl discovered that relates the noematic nucleus to essences and beyond
that to ideational glosses. Induction and deduction occur between the noematic
nuclei and the glosses. Essence perception brings in a different dimension which is
related to Process Being. We could in fact posit that beyond the essence there must
be meta-essences and proto-essences as well. Our table does not reflect this as it
would be overwhelmingly esoteric to give names to these meta-levels of essence at
every ontological level. Besides we have already covered these ontological
structures in our consideration of manifestation. The levels of essence are just
another way of speaking about the levels of manifestation only within the thing.
However, it is important to recognize that there are higher derivatives of essence.
Kant for instance recognized that beyond each thing there is a noumena. This is the
presence of some purely immanent aspect. Thus the essence of manifestation
appears within each thing at some level of its articulation. We can see the opacity of
the noumena as becoming diffuse within the thing and mixed with the phenomena.
This is what we have called Wild Being. This is what the thing looks like on the
level of what Ballard calls the “archaic.” We can see this as a range between the
unhewn, the rough hewn and the hewn. Each thing can be seen as being like the
rock walls in Scotland made up of unhewn rocks arranged together to form a wall.
If we do not change those found rocks but merely fit them together then the wall is
made up of unhewn parts taken from nature and retaining their wild character. But
if we knock off a corner to make them fit they become rough hewn. When we find
rock in a query and the stone mason forms it into a perfect shape then it is a hewn
wall that is produced. If we make a form and pour in cement to make bricks then we
get a formed wall. These stages show us how there is a spectrum of wildness with
425
some places between wild and tame. The wild and tame do not produce an absolute
difference. The last meta-level of essence reflects this spectrum between wild and
tame which is always with us even if we cover up the wild with the artificial in
every way we can because the proto-essence becomes then a nostalgia for the
destroyed wilderness, like deep ecology or a fascination with shamanism, for
instance. This becomes important to us because it is the relation between essence,
meta-essence, and proto-essence that generates the difference between hardware (as
a formal-structural system), software and artificial intelligence/life. The
combination of artificial intelligence and life is the autopoietic living/cognitive
system. Thus the relation between the meta-essence and proto-essence is very
important to us in this series of essays. But these higher essences are not readily
recognized and we would have to go to some lengths to explain them. Let is be said
here that just as manifestation in general participates in the meta-levels of Being so
does the manifestation of the individual thing. Husserl discovered the difference
between the essence perception and the relation between noematic nucleus and
gloss via induction and deduction. This unleashed through the work of his pupil
Heidegger a new ontology that began discovering different kinds of Being. Four
different kinds were discovered. No one has gone back to say that this must mean
that there are three different kinds of essence above induction and deduction. But
this follows from the postulation of the different kinds of Being. A thing must
participate in all the different kinds of Being. We postulate that different kinds of
things have their basis in one of the levels or another. As we go up the hierarchy
those thins become more and more rare. For instance software has its being at level
three and artificial life and intelligence has its being primarily at level four.
At the level of ideation we see the precept which is a gram at the level of pattern and
a figure at the object level. Essence means the perception of kindness which at the
Primitive level can be seen as the construction of a diagram. The diagram connects
the grams to produce a kind of pattern. Also at this level the substance and
properties of states of affairs appear. For a primitive these are called characteristic
and instance. For an object these are called attribute and body. Notice that the
substance is connected with embodiment and abstraction at the same time. The
substance is at once the node of embodiment and generalization which may be seen
as contradictory roles. The gloss on the substance is called the idea in the case of an
object and a template in the case of the pattern. Thus to return to Johannson’s
example if a property is price and the substance is a commodity then we can say that
the commodity must appear as a noematic nucleus of a certain kind. The kindness is
a particular combination of properties and substance which is generalizable to other
426
kinds. But the kind without embodiment is nothing. The substance becomes the
point of organization of the substrata in other ontological levels and also the basis
for the gloss. It should also be noticed that another aspect that will not be named at
each level is the integra. Each thing has its own particular coherence of properties
and their values that goes beyond what appears as the essence. This is what the
Chinese refer to when they say each thing has its own pattern of Chi and its own Li.
Essences are not the end of the organization of phenomena. You might be misled by
the philosophical literature in the west that does not recognize the organization
beyond what is intersubectively agreeable. But each of us appreciated the aesthetics
of the individually unique coherences. The integra will also not be give separate
names at each level because of the burden that would put upon the reader and the
writer of this essay. But we cannot discuss essences without mentioning the integra.
We notice that the meta-essence and the proto-essence tend toward the capture of
the integra. The meta-essence as noumena grants to the object a coherence that
cannot be seen phenomenologically. This is backed by Husserl but it does not mean
it no longer exists. The proto-essence gives us to the archaic aspect of the thing and
its shading off into the wild out of the artificial. Both thing as noumena and as wild
are approximations to the thing as integra, as a unique patterning beyond essence.
Let us look at the system. It is a kernel of selected dimensions as a precept. But its
kindness is seen in the system motif. It properties are its parameters which are
organized along the dimensions of the system. It substance is its embodiment or
implementation and the gloss is the system concept. Here we notice that the gloss
attempts to reach toward wholeness which is often out of reach. Plato postulated
that ideas have a level or reality of their own. Templates for patterns such as tilings
also have this formal aspect which is limited by the space we inhabit and thus make
certain patterns possible and others impossible. So to with the system concept. It is
a view of the whole system and is made up of selected dimensions of parameters
what are articulated around a particular motif and given embodiment. From the
system concept we can produce many candidate designs. However, coming up with
this concept is difficult. To do it we must be inspired or take a leap into the void.
The system concept is the source of many concrete system candidates. It is a
cornucopia or a door by which candidate system designs come into existence.
When we move up to the meta-system level we see as the percept a constellation.

The kindness is revealed as an organization imposed upon the constellation. The
organization has its aspects and its network. In what we are doing here we are
mentioning aspects of ontological levels but we must not remember that networks
427
of entities on which these ontological levels are projected are assumed to exist to
give these ontological levels concrete embodiment. The gloss of the meta-system
level is the order that is produced. This is the major feature of the dissipative meta-
system: order is produced out of nothing. Order is information which appears
specifically as an organization of the constellation. The constellation is reified into a
network by introducing relations. The organization is the set of relations among the
different parts of the constellation that turns it into a network rather than isolated
units. The aspects are the points at which the relations make contact with the
properties of the systems that are being networked.
At the domain level we have types that appear in a taxonomy. The taxonomy
reveals a form of meta-kindness. The property is the taxon, which is the handle by
which the types are distinguished within the taxonomy. The substance is the cluster
which includes many networks and the gloss is principle. It is only by principles can
the taxonomy maintain its ordering capability. Principle ranks the taxons in order of
importance and produces the taxonomy as a structure. The taxonomy clusters the
networks into different kinds.
At the level of worlds the percept is pure noema an the kindness appears in terms of
noesis. Properties are existentials and the substance is existence while the gloss is
the transcendentals. Here we see the situation reversing so that at the level of world
it is dasein that becomes the center of attention instead of the categorizable things.
At the level of world the one who projects the world is called into question. That
one distinguishes noesis from noema. To the extent these mixtures of hyle and
morphe can be distinguished then there is separation from what appears in the
world. But where that distinction cannot be made then we get a merging of dasein
with the world even as dasein project s the world. In Heuristic Research the
boundary between noesis and noema becomes more and more fuzzy. This is related
to the fuzzy relation between wild and tame yet different. Here there is a merging
within the tame which is a necessary prerequisite for the merging into the wild of
the artificial. Dasein has existentials which are the way it relates to existences. It
relates basically though the ecstatic projection of the world and everything within it.
But that projection has structure which is the province of phenomenology to study.
Or it can be studied based on dialectics, structuralism or hermeneutics. Each of
these are forms of distancing and ecstasy is a projection of distancing of self from
self which produces the world in the interval between the self and itself.
If we rise to the level of the universe we see nature as reified and opposed to
428
culture. Nature is the precept. The substantiated theory stands in the place of
kindness. The properties of nature are universals and the substance is matter. The
gloss is scientific law. This at the level of the universe we have the production of a
unified totality built upon the lifeworld as a fantasy projection of the intersubjective
cohort. In the pluriverse this fantasy breaks down. Here the percept is the proto-
gestalt which is the infra-structure of the series of temporal gestalts. Kindness
appears as the primal scene which covers over the always already lost origin. The
properties are the invariants while the substance is the actual and the glosses are the
eternal. This level is discussed at length in my book1. Suffice it to say that to reach
this level you must peel back the superficial basis of the modern western worldview
and look at its historical roots. That is not a simple task that can be summarized in a
few lines. It is instead the work of a progressive onto-mythology that delves into the
roots of our worldview and exposes the underbelly that is normally hidden from
view by the gloss of modernity. Our worldview has deep roots going back at least
6000 years. Uncovering those roots is a long and complex story.
Table 11: Ideation
correlate percept kindness property substance gloss
Primi- gram dia- char- instanc template

tive gram acter- e
istic
Object figure; essenc attribut body idea
noe- e e
matic
nucleu
s
Sys- kernel sys- param- embod system
tem of tem eter iment; concept
selecte motif imple-
d ment-
dimen- ation
sions
Meta- con- organi- aspect net- order
Sys- stella- zation work
tem tion
Domai type taxon- taxon cluster principle
n omy
World noema noesis exis- exist- transcen-
tentials ence dental
1.The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void (manuscript)
429
Table 11: Ideation
correlate percept kindness property substance gloss
Uni- nature sub- univer- matter scientific

verse stanti- sals law
ated
theory
Pluri- proto- pri- invari- actual eternal
verse gestalt mor- ants
dial
scene
430
6.3.5. Projection
Finally we reach the level of projection itself. Projection identifies who projects and
what is projected. The interaction of the projector and the approach are also
identified and some examples given. This list does not have to be explained step by
step. there are fairly clear cascades that are related to each other here. All that needs
to be pointed out is that who is the projector changes at the different ontological
levels. Also what is being projected changes. Like Goertzel we like to see patterns
at the basis of our set of ontological levels and each of the higher levels are
concatenations of patterns. But we do not believe that things at higher levels can be
reduced to patterns. There are emergences at teach levels so the illusory subject is
transformed along with what is seen. Our approach can be either presentational or
representational as Johannson pointed out. We call this the difference between
interaction and approach. Interactions have the feature of being processed
backwards in time whereas approaches are the results of these backward
processings that produce higher levels of abstraction. When we look at information
or view a concept then we get the chains of recursion that Goertzel identifies with
the serial processing of consciousness. Otherwise if the perception is not of a
theory, for example, then there is direct presentation. If the theory stands alone then
there is representation disconnected from experience. Streams of consciousness
occur when there is a mixture of these with recursive feeding of the theory back to
perception. This causes continual RE-presentation that appears as an illusory
continuity. This can happen on any ontological level so that these ontological levels
give us a stratification of consciousness by Goertzel’s model of the virtual computer
within the parallel architecture. Instead of a single strand at one level we see
multiple strands at all the levels operating simultaneously. The ontological levels
give us a map of the mind but only at the highest of our archeological levels.
Table 12:
approac
who interaction what examples
h
P self look, pattern fact information,

glimpse assumption
O subjec view, shape conce formation,
t regard pt production,
design,
431
Table 12:
approac
who interaction what examples
h
S observ sight, gestalt theor observation,

er, percepti y performance
theori on ,
st, presentation
audien
ce
M genera pan(ora collection paradi collage,
list, ma), of shows, gm montage,
survey entertainme multimedia
condu nt display,
ctor orchestra
D specia perspect framework, episte enterprise,
list ive architectoni me market,
c environment
W dasein circums Formal interp fourfold
pection, Ontology retati
perlustra about the on of
tion plenum of Being
beings
U huma vision totality, cosm theory of
n tonala ology everything
P creatu intuition beyond, mysti more things
re nagualb cism in this
cosmos than
contemplate
d by your
philosophy
a.term introduced by Carlos Castenada for everything that can be known
b.term introduced by Carlos Castenada for everything else
432
6.4. Recapitulation of levels.
6.4.1. Template
Figure 87:
KINDS OF BEING IDEATION PROJECTION

meta-level
LEVEL
interaction
who what
approach
gloss
kindness property
percept
substance
distinction nexus
clearing
thing anti-thing
alteration
depth MANIFESTATION SPLITTING EMBODIMENT
when
dirt
how
edge
where
Chi
Li
Great Ultimate
433
6.4.2. Primitive
The primitive level in focused primarily on patterns. Goertzel uses algorithmic

theory of information to define patters in terms of the algorithmic complexity
needed to generate the pattern. At this lowest level the self looks at or glimpses the
pattern as a facticity. The pattern may appear as a fuzzy set that compose at the next
highest level of the hierarchy a shape. When we look closer at the pattern we see
following Derrida a set of grams that taken together form a diagram which has a
template by which the various grams are formed into the pattern. The diagram is a
partial pattern that we might immediately apprehend even if we do not see the
whole extent of the pattern. The diagram is a state of affairs which is composed
following Johannson of a set of characteristics attached to an instance. But if we
look even deeper we see that operating within the pattern are the four meta-levels of
Being. The pattern is made up of particles which embody a set of differences from
each other. The change from one particle into another transgresses across the
differences. The particles and anti-particle from one perspective may be considered
as one with a joint between them. From another perspective the particle and anti-
particle may be seen as being separated by an opening which contains folds as
points of opaque reversibility. The manifestation of the pattern within Being takes
place as an embodiment. The embodiment has occurs in a neighborhood at a
moment in time. The pattern itself may be seen as a movement if it is dynamic. If it
is static the movement occurs in our observation of the pattern. The embodiment
has grit or flaws throughout the pattern and the pattern itself has a limit even if that
is only a shading off into infinity at a distance. But more fundamentally the pattern
exhibits the flow of Chi and the striations of Li. These are ways of appearing of any
Yin thing. They are the ways that primary process is apprehended phenomenally.
By looking at the flow and striations we see the action of invisible causes or the
Yang that represents the non-manifesting part of primary process. Together yin and
yang give us indications of the Great Ultimate or the source about which we can
deny secondary causation. Goertzel builds up a structual transformation system out
of patterns and refers to Whorf’s concept of patternization as the basic mechanism
for building up the major features of the world. We concur with the emphasis on
pattern but believe that patterns operate only at one level of the ontological
hierarchy. That level is the one which sees the structural underpinning of forms so it
is right for Goertzel to identify that with the structural transformative system.
However, it is clear that patterns arise as ways we see primary process. Through
spliting we turn the primary process into secondary processes and through ideation
we turn the patterns into tertiary processes. Following this transformative
434
movement from self creating process to autopoiesis and finally to allopoiesis must
be done in order to get a proper perspective on patterning.
Figure 88:
IDEATION PROJECTION
shape
PRIMITIVE
look, glimpse
self pattern
fact
template
diagram characteristic
gram
instance
EMBODIMENT KINDS OF BEING

difference fold
opening
particle anti-particle
change
joint
moment
grit
movement
limit
neighborhood
SPLITTING
flow
striations
MANIFESTATION
Primary Process
435
6.4.3. Object
The subject views or regards the object. This is the presentational interaction. The
representational approach is through conceptualization. The object appears as a
shape. It is a shaped shape. Like pattern shape can be either verb or noun. This
suggestive reversibility gets at the core phenomena beyond the reification of
language. We see this object as a noematic nucleus in Husserl’s terminology. We
apprehend its kindness through the essence and produce glosses of ideas as illusory
continuities or abstractions. The glossed thing is a state of affairs consisting of body
and attributes bound together interdependently. Beneath ideation we see the inner
workings of Being that projects forms that have between them differences that
make a difference. The crossing of this line of meta-difference is a transformation.
Between forms when we look deeper we see what Derrida calls the hinge. But we
can also look at the distance between the forms a spacings which hold a nexus of
reversibility called at this level a chiasm by Merleau-Ponty. This appearance of
forms occur in a place for a duration. The embodiment exists as an action and has
flaws and discontinuous limits. This occurs over a substrate of process with grain
that prevent our seeing primary process directly.
This expression of the articulation of this ontological level allows us to see its
emergent qualities over and above the qualities of patterns. Patterns lack depth.
Patterns are primarily informational whereas Shapes loom within places for durations
and lack the accessibility of patterns. There is no doubt that we need to appeal to
patterns to understand the structural aspects of forms and their transformations across
discontinuities but this does not mean that we can reduce shapes to patterns. The
reduction is done only to understand changes in forms. Otherwise it is clear that
objects are different from primitives. In fact we can see this when we look at the atom.
At one point the atom was the primitive of our physical science. It explained objects
called molecules and chemical reactions. As a primitive atoms explained the
transformation of one substance into another. With the discovery of new primitives
this explanatory power of the atom did not go away. And the atom as element is
treated differently then the atom seen as something composed of fundamental
particles. Something with parts is seen as an object. Primitives do not have parts. They
are the last appeal of some explanatory system. Genes and Dna strings are another
example. The gene has no parts it is a complete thing that can be used as an
explanation for some phenomena. When we map the gene to the DNA string then we
do not lose the explanatory power of the gene that Mendle discovered. Instead, the
DNA string is now an object, not a primitive which we view as having codon parts.
So the same thing can be seen as either a primitive or as an object. Mixing these two
436
classes at different ontological levels together cause a great deal of confusion. They
are two different ways of looking at the same thing.
Figure 89:
PROJECTION
gestalt
OBJECT
view, regard
subject shape
concept
IDEATION
idea
essence attribute
noematic
nucelli
body

difference2 chiasm
spacing
form anti-form
transform
hinge
duration
flaw
discontinuity
action
place
SPLITTING
process
grain
MANIFESTATION
Primary Process
437
6.4.4. System
Now we move to the level of a system where an observer or theorist or audience

has the perception of a gestalt. The interaction on a presentational level is the sight or
perception and the approach on a representational level is the theory. The word gestalt
does not have the nice noun / verb reversibility that we considered valuable in the
words pattern and shape. But we assume that the same phenomenon exists here even
though it is awkward to talk about. The gestalt of the system is a process of showing
and hiding. When we attempt to focus in on this showing and hiding process we must
select a kernel of dimensions within which to see the system. Within that set of
dimensions appears the system motif or its basic patterning that is glossed by the
system concept. The motif contains parameters and an embodiment or
implementation. If we look below the level of ideation we see the different kinds of
Being working together to produce the illusory continuity of the system as a
conceptual representation or as a perception. Here we see that the thing of interest in
the system is the states and that there are transitions from state to state across
boundaries. The system has a structure which we can capture in state machine vectors.
But we can also see the system states as a phase space with bifurcations that occur
with the excitation of the system as it tends toward chaos. The embodiment of the
system occurs in a context during an interval and exhibits a behavior. The behavior
may become disturbed by perturbations and if the perturbations are strong enough
non-linearities may result. But the non-linearities may be generated by the system
itself as well. Every system exhibits a dynamism and tends to become channeled.
Waddington calls these channels cherods. They are the lines of least resistance that
the system naturally follows unless forced to do otherwise either internally or
externally. The channeling of the dynamism of the system is the last distinguishable
vestige before the system collapses into primary process. Systems are different from
objects and patterns. Systems contain objects and objects contain primitives. Systems
reveal the dynamic interaction of different objects. Objects contain patterns statically
for the most part. The observer sees the patterns by apprehending the object from
different angles. Systems themselves are in motion and the objects appear within
them as figures on grounds. Our perception moves from object to object as the system
produces showing and hiding dynamics. Systems of patterns are called structural
transformation systems by Goertzel.
438
Figure 90:
IDEATION PROJECTION
collection of shows
SYSTEM
observersight, perception
theorist
audience gestalt
theory
system concept
system parameter
motif
kernel
selected embodiment
dimensions
MANIFESTATION SPLITTING EMBODIMENTKINDS OF BEING

implementation
boundary bifurcation
phase space
state anti-state
transition
structure
interval
perturbation
non-linearity
behavior
context
dynamism
channels
Primary Process
439
6.4.5. Meta-system
The meta-system is usually confused with a system. The term system is normally
used to cover both. But we need to carefully distinguish these two kinds of systems
that are really at different ontological levels. Here the generalist pans or surveys the
collection of shows or panorama. The collection of shows operates like any multiple
channel entertainment, e.g. like a the three ringed circus. Channel TV is a excellent
example if one can view multiple different channels simultaneously. The
presentational interaction is through the survey, or in the case of channel TV there is
“channel surfing or show hopping.” The representational approach is through a
paradigm. If we look closer we see the ideational structure which is completely
different from that of a system. A system normally maintains control over its parts. A
meta-system provides an arena within which different shows can occur if they abide
by certain rules. So for the meta-system the equivalent of the noematic nucleus is a
constellation of systems. That constellation is organized and the organization is
glossed as an order. The organization is a state of affairs with two network and aspects
bound together in complex interdependencies. If we look deeper still we see the
substrate of Being where the system is seen as present-at-hand even though it is a
process. The distinction between systems is called by Derrida differAnce. Through
meta-system transitions there is movement from one system to another either
spatially or temporally or both as mentioned earlier. The meta-system transitions
reveal the deep structure connecting different structural systems as aspects of the
same thing. But we can also see between two different system networks a clearing of
elasticity and a nexus of resonance. Systems can compensate for each other and can
resonate together and that harmony is what we call the meta-system proper. The
network is embodied under a regime in a timespan and exhibits a repertory of
behaviors. The dirt in this case is called anomalies and the limit is edge of the meta-
system is determined by constraints. Within the meta-system there is drift an play that
are the ways Li and Chi manifest themselves as they split around the Yin aspect of
primary process. Meta-systems are like operating systems for computers. They are
the arena in which systems functions. They may be considered as systems themselves
but this is actually a categorical mistake. Actually we can look at a dynamic
phenomena as either a system or a meta-system and if we do we will see different
aspects of the same phenomenon under scrutiny.
440
Figure 91:
IDEATION PROJECTION
domain
META-SYSTEM
pan, survey
generalist collection of shows
paradigm three ring circus
order
organization aspect
constellation network

differAnce resonance
elasticity
system anti-system
meta-
system
transition deep structure
timespan
anomaly
repertory
constraint
regime
SPLITTING
play
drift
MANIFESTATION
Primary Process
441
6.4.6. Domain
Where the system was monolithic and the meta-system loose and open, the domain
is again monolithic but in a different sense. Domains cover a set of systems of the
same type that appear in different circumstances. The domain framework is the result
of an exercise in domain engineering. Here the specialist approaches the domain on
the basis of an episteme or a certain organization of knowledge and its basic
categories. The specialist gets a perspective on the framework of the domain and
perhaps posits an architecture for that domain that should guide the design of specific
systems in that domain. If we look deeper we see that there is a taxonomic process
going on within the ideational realm. The equivalent of the noematic nucleus is the
type which taken together with other types creates a taxonomy. The creation of an
order to the taxonomy occurs on the basis of an application of principles. The
taxonomy organizes the taxons and the clusters of networks in a set of relations that
is interdependent. But the taxonomy really only reveals more fundamental categories
at the level of projection of Being. Between a category and the anti-category there
exists a horizon. The transition of an horizon is a revolution within the category
system. Foucault called this an episteme change. The categories as one goes deeper
and deeper form a core set. This core set looks something like Aristotle or Kant’s table
of categories or the set proposed by Johannson. The core is the fundamental set of
most general yet orthogonal categories. Between categories there is always some
slippage as things are difficult to categorize and the nexus is the congruencies
between categories in which the categories overlap. The clusters of meta-systems are
embodied in a situation during an era. They exhibit a mode in which the repertory of
behaviors changes. The dirt in this case is called weirdness where category schemes
breakdown and categories always exhibit some edge called a border past which they
do not apply. The clusters of meta-systems within domains exhibit trends and torque
as the means of spliting primary process into something cognizable. The torque is an
inner tendency within a trend. Torque has the same relation to a trend as a tendency
has to an intention. As Johannson says tendencies may point in different directions
than tendencies and so they are separate ontological categories. So to a torque within
a trend may be pushing in a different direction than the trend is going. Torque is the
pressure that increases the tightness of screws. Torque is an intensity in this case.
442
Figure 92:
IDEATION PROJECTION
world
DOMAIN
perspective
specialist framework
episteme architectonic
principle
taxonomy taxon
type
cluster
KINDS OF BEING
horizon congruence
slippage
category anti-category
revolution
MANIFESTATION SPLITTING EMBODIMENT

core
era
weirdness
mode
border
situation
trend
torque
Primary Process
443
6.4.7. World
After subject and object collapses there is dasein (being-there) or being-in-the-

world who is neither generalist or specialist. Instead dasein as being-in-the-world
interacts with beings through circumspection and approaches the world by projecting
an interpretation of Being. What dasein circumspects and interprets is the
fundamental objects of its formal ontology. The formal ontology posits different
classes of beings and dasein takes a circumspective viewpoint on all of these classes
of beings. When we look closer we see that dasein sees all the beings posited by the
formal ontology as being composed of noema and dasein presents these noema to
itself as noesis. Here the substance is the existence posited in relation to different
beings and that is apprehended through the existentials of dasein. In the case of
Heidegger these existentials are understanding, talk and discoveredness. These
together have a core of care. But across the noesis dasein projects a gloss covering all
beings identified in the Formal Ontology. In this case the gloss is Being as a
transcendental differentiated from beings via ontological difference. In the case of
Heidegger this transcendental, Being, is seen to ground itself thus producing the
conundrum of Ontological Monism. Looking closer we see fragmentation of Being
at work within the process of projecting Being. A being stands over and against an
anti-being differentiated by a multi-horizon. A multi-horizon is a set of horizons
acting together. Crossing the horizon is an act of transcendence. The difference
between the beings is a displacement in relation to the transcendental. The nexus
within the displacement is a synchroniety or a lack of displacement which makes
beings entrain harmonically. The depth beneath the transcendence is immanence, the
unconscious, that hides itself always. Existence must occur in a realm during an
epoch. It occurs as a schesis or mood because dasein is projecting the world as an act
of ecstasy which entails its taking on a mood. In the occurrence the dirt appears as
strangeness and the edge as alterity or otherness. Though strangeness we know the
other. Beneath the occurrence there is a confluence and a coherence of beings that
masks our direct apprehension of primary process. Dasein is ‘in’ the world that it
itself has projected. The ontological difference between beings and Being is
something that Dasein produces. Worlds encompass all domains and they are the
basis for projecting the universe as an objective reality.
444
Figure 93:
KINDS OF BEING IDEATIONPROJECTIO

universe
WORLD
circumspection
dasein Formal Ontology
interpretation of Being
transcendental
noesis existentials
noema
existence
multi-horizon synchroneity
displacement
being anti-being
MANIFESTATIONSPLITTING EMBODIMENT
transcendence
immanence
alterity, otherness
epoch
strangeness
schesis,
mood
realm
confluence
coherence
Primary Process
445
6.4.8. Universe
The universe is a projection out of our lifeworld of an objective reality. It is a solely

human vision of totality. This totality has been called by Carlos Castenada the tonal
as opposed to the nagual which is everything that cannot be reduced to the single song
of the Uni-verse. The totality is approached as a representation through cosmology
and the means of presentational interaction is vision. In our own Western worldview
we see the equivalent of the noematic nucleus as nature. It is apprehended on the basis
of experimentally substantiated theories which isolate universals concerning matter.
The gloss of the substantiated theory is a scientific law. When we look closer we see
the different kinds of Being at work within this ideational process. One science is
differentiated from other sciences by its defined borders, but these borders are not
clean cut in most cases. There is a will to power or dominance which occurs when
these borders are breached usually through some reductionist technique. The various
attempts at reduction cause the lacunae between emergent levels to become the final
arbiter in disputes. Between disciplines there arises different forms of distancing. We
have seen this in the case of Phenomenology, Dialectics, Hermeneutics, and
Structuralism. The nexus between disciplines reveals interdisciplinarity which is also
the region where Heuristic Research arises as an anti-method. Matter occurs in
spacetime / timespace in a position. The dirt in spacetime / timespace are the
singularities which are undefined by the laws of physics and have the same status as
the edges of the universe before and after the Big Bang. Singularities within the
universe and the edges at the big bang are both unthinkable in terms of physics and
properly belong to meta-physics. Beneath the level of occurrence there is the flux and
the intrinsics that correspond to Chi and Li that split the Yin aspect of Primary Process
so it can be apprehended.
The universe is a reification of the world which can only exist, as Goertzel says on
the basis of a shared belief system. He goes on to point out that self and reality are
both mutual projections which give rise to each other and entail each other. Thus he
reaches a position similar to that of Loy in Non-Duality which denies the reality of
the physical universe beyond the shared beliefs and the social construction of self and
reality. This is of course the position of intersubjective phenomenology as well.
Reality is socially constructed.
446
Figure 94:
KINDS OF BEING IDEATION PROJECTION

BEYOND
UNIVERSE
vision
HUMAN TOTALITY; tonal
cosmology
scientific law
substantiated universals
theory
nature
matter
border between disciplines interdisciplinarity

distancing
science anti-science
will to power
MANIFESTATION SPLITTING EMBODIMENT

dominance
lacuna between
emergent levels
timespace
singularity
unthinkable
position
spacetime
flux
intrinsic
Primary Process
447
6.4.9. Pluriverse
The pluriverse is what lies beyond the totality of the Universe. That totality can be
seen as a single filter which excludes everything that is not allowed within the
confines of the universe. An example is UFOs or ESP or what ever does not fit the
norms of admission of the universe as a dominant shared belief system. In the
pluriverse a creature interacts with the Beyond through his intuition. Carlos
Castenada called this Beyond the Nagual. The mythology which Castenada has
produced has many features that violate the shared beliefs that police our designation
of reality. He uses the distinction between tonal and nagual to define this difference.
Since we do not have a good vocabulary for talking about the beyond his vocabulary
is introduced to situate what we are speaking of. He postulates many things in his
novels that go beyond the shared norms of our dominant worldview. Those things that
do not fit into the dominant view of what is real in the universe is classified as
belonging to the nagual. An example is the transformation of a human into an animal.
There are many other worldviews or partial worldviews that stand in violation of
materialist ontological norms from other cultures. The pluriverse includes all of these
other possible universes as well as the possibility of multiple parallel universes
posited by some physicists. The approach to what lies beyond is called mysticism.
Mysticism has a long tradition in many cultures including the Western mysticism. For
instance, some parts of western culture posits the existence of fairies and elves. All
these denied possibilities belong to the pluriverse. When we look at the pluriverse
through ideation we see the equivalent of the noematic nucleus is called the proto-
gestalt. The proto-gestalt is the behind the scenes unity of many transforming gestalts.
Through the proto-gestalt we get views of eternals which are features of eternity or
the out-of-time realm beyond our in-time realm. We see the eternals through the
postulation of primal scenes which stand for the always already lost origin of things
within the in-time realm. In the Indo-European heritage the primal scene is contains
images of the well and the tree. The primal scene contains indicators of invariants that
go beyond what exists in-time and these are related to actuality. The invariants and
the actuality have the relations of properties to substances within states of affairs.
However, these states of affairs go beyond what can be expressed within our universe.
We also see the different kinds of Being operating. We see emergent universes
appearing at the edge of our own universe. The depth here is the ultimate reality and
meaning of all existence. It is related to such questions as “Why is there something
rather than nothing.” Between the universes there is a spacetime warp which isolates
separate parallel universes in physical terms. It is such warps that one encounters
when moving from one universe to another. The clearing exists as the range of
448
variability between universes. All alternative universes plus our own exists within the
matrix which is the equivalent to spacetime for all possible universes. The matrix is
what existed before the Big Bang. It is the matrix that the Big Bang causes the
universe to explode into and that is still happening now. The matrix also contains all
possible universes which are somehow parallel to our own. In there matrix there is no
difference between spacetime and timespace. We dwell within the matrix as
creatures. The dirt in the matrix is the unknowable absolute opacities and the edge of
the matrix is what is incommensurate with our way of being. Every thing that is
beyond our comprehension, or our understanding in the terms that are acceptable in
the dominant accepted belief system defines that limit. The equivalent to the Chi is
the upwelling of the universes from out of the void. The equivalent to the Li is the
quintessence, or the inner coherence of the upwelling. This has been called the
Philosophers Stone by alchemists in the Western tradition. In China the Quintessence
is called Hun Tun. In the Kabalah a similar idea is called The Tree of Life. These are
ways of talking about the essence of everything which goes beyond our
understanding. The upwelling and the quintessence are ways of talking about Primary
Process that goes beyond what is possible to say about it via shared, so called
“Objective,” rules about rationality that hold sway in the totalitarian environment of
the universe. The pluriverse, also called the multiverse, incorporates all “fringe” ways
of looking at and seeing the world. It is there as a catch all category which reminds us
that there are more ways to see the world than that of the dominant worldview which
has gained sway over the whole earth largely through the power of the gun. The
pluriverse is a reminder that there were originally many different worldviews many
of which still exist even though myriads have become extinct. Also the pluriverse is
the home of the perceptions of all other non-human creatures. It is the stronghold of
Deep Ecology which would give rights to be left alone to those other animals.
Whether we endorse all these other possible worldviews, and universes our category
system must have a place for them and the realization that we are not the only ones to
ever have viable a way of looking at actuality. But we must also admit that so many
cultures have systems that contrast our in-time realm to eternity. The pluriverse is also
the place where eternity still lives. The eternal is what is covered over by the primal
scene. Nietzsche talks about this in terms of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. The
Pluriverse is where this Eternal Recurrence of the Same occurs. We may say along
with Heidegger that the Same is what belongs together. Thus all the universes that
emerge from the upwelling of the Primary Process belong together. Our universe is
only one of the many possibilities. The expression of this Sameness is called the
quintessence. The quintessence is what is the same across all possible universes. The
quintessence begins to approach the realization of pure Yang. After all the Li is the
449
image of the Yang in the Yin. If we speak about Hun Tun then there is the story of the
opening up of orifices in the primordial man by his friends. This of course killed him.
This is similar to the Indo-european story of the killing of the Prusha or Yamm. The
Yang is seen by analogy to be on the backs of the animals whereas the Yin is seen to
be on their fronts. When you think about it most creatures have no eyes or ears or other
orifices on their backs. So every creature has an aspect of Hun Tun in their physical
anatomy. That closure as opposed to the openness of the yin side (the underbelly or
facing side) of the animals is the doorway to the realm of the pluriverse. Closure
within the universe is the doorway to an openness on the multiple parallel universes.
The Chinese knew this very well. They attempted to raise to an ideal the concept of
diminishing what the eyes see and said that you could know the whole world without
leaving your hut. This is because the basic principle of existence is one even though
there are myriad variations in existence. This principle that is one is the quintessence.
The production of difference is the upwelling of the universes. All the universes
manifest the same principle which is the reflection of the Yang in the Yin. Yang is not
pure either. Yang has a reflection of the Yin within it. This is the appearance that there
are multiple unseen causes. There is in fact only one cause for everything which is the
pure yang but we do not see this primary cause directly. Instead we see many different
unseen causes operating within existence, as when new species as types of autopoietic
systems pop into existence. These are the result of unseen causes which are
differentiations of pure Yang which affirms no second-ary causation. This is the Yin
450
aspect within Yang
IDEATION PROJECTION
2
PLURIVERSEBEYOND
intuition
CREATURE BEYOND, nagual
mysticism
eternal
primal invariants
scene
proto
gestalt
actuality
EMBODIMENTKINDS OF BEING
edges of
universe time-space warp
range of variability
universe anti-universe
emergent
universes
ultimate reality and meaning
matrix
incommensurate
unknowable
dwelling
matrix
MANIFESTATION SPLITTING
upwelling
quintessence
Primary Process
7. Cognitive Systematization
Defining the ontological layers as has been done is only the first step because we
need a way to produce a coherent body of knowledge about the things defined in
451
our level ontology. Levels destroy once and for all any hope of axiomization.
Godel’s proof made it clear that axiomizaiton was an unrealistic goal for any
ontology with one level, but the addition of other levels makes this goal well nigh
impossible because no deductive system can handle the lacunae between levels.
Jumping from step to step within a proof is hard enough without trying to reason
across discontinuities generated at an ontological level. The only kinds of
philosophies that ever try to handle that were the different level ontologies of an
idealistic or materialistic bent. But we need to assure that creating our level
ontology based on both the phenomenal and ontological hierarchies still allows us
to develop a coherent body of knowledge in spite of the different levels involved.
Johannson shows how this will work from the ontological end with his distinction
between substance and substratum. But from the epistemological end we need
something to replace the concept of axiomization. That something is what Nicholas
Rescher calls Cognitive Systemization. He proposes that it is not necessary to have
axioms in order to have a coherent body of knowledge. Instead he works from the
basis of a network of principles that ones cognitive system uses as a basis. We will
not delve into systematization itself except to note that it is similar to Deleuze and
Guttari’s concept of the rhizome as opposed to arboresque structures. The rhizome
is a network and as such it does not have any beginning or end. It is all middle with
many different entrys and exits. It is basically structured like a hypertext document
with myriad jumps back and forth within the rhizome and many places to enter the
document from indexes, contents, and special purpose outlines. We posit that each
level of our level ontology has a rhizome structure and is essentially an interlocking
network that has many relations with other networks at other ontological levels. So
that all the connections between these different networks centered at ontological
levels is part of a meta-rhizome containing all the networks on all the ontological
levels and all the cross level links. This meta-rhizome if it existed would be very
complex and would exhibit not just artificailly emergent phenomena within given
levels but also artificially emergent inter-level phenomena. The job of applying
cognitive systematization to the meta-rhizome is an endless task. It is likened to the
application of the hermeneutic circle to a text to attempt to get at the meaning
beyone all the interlocking diacritical significances of the text. It is
phenomenological in the sense that one must attend to the artificially emergent
phenomena within and between levels as well as genuinely emergent phenomena
that repattern the different local-rhizomes or the whole meta-rhizome. It is
structural in the sense that there are discontinuities between ontolotical levels,
phenomenal levels, and between rhizomes at the same level that must be accounted
for and dealt with. It is dialectical in the sense that there are many wholes
452
throughout this interlocking structure that may be investigated or produced. In other

words cognitive systematization must apply each of our distancing approaches in
turn to the problem of getting a systematic view of knowledge that spans the entire
meta-rhizome.
A point that needs to be made in relation to this effort is the priority of non-
cognitive or ontological systematicity over cognitive systematicity. We must first
have a view of our Formal Ontology before we can systematize it from a cognitive
viewpoint. This work has not been completed. We how have a view of the different
ontological levels and this can be compared to the different phenomenal levels
discovered by science. But we have not yet gone to the extent of identifying all
kinds that exist and the hierarchical relations of substances and substrata. This work
goes beyond the scope of this study. It is enough to identify the categories of
Johannson and the ontological hierarchy of emergent levels to complement the
phenomenal hierarchy. But before cognitive systematization could really take off
the final work of Formal Ontology would have to be completed. The main point
here is that there is another way of systematizing knowledge other than
axiomization that will work and Rescher has outlined that methodology for us.
Until systemtaization occurs we have rhizomes as the fundamental form our
knowledge takes as it straddles the ontological and phenomenal levels. We must
realize that the lacunae between levels are not a hinderance to knowledge but an
opportunity. Axiomization does not work. So we can give up that pursuit. Having
ontological levels only complicates things a bit. It is not the reason we cannot
axiomize. It does, however, provide us with an ontology that is adequate to the
phenomena we exprience. If we cannot axiomize we might as well have
descriptions of existence that are aligned with what we discover rather than falling
for the reductionist program every time. Reductionism is good for creating crisp
descriptions of phenomenal levels. It is never true except when it seeks to reduce
things between levels to a particular level. The ontological and phenomenal
hierarchy shoud be viewed as complementary. Right now science mixes these two
together hiding their assumptions along the way. By separating these two we are
really separating as much as is possible the noesis from the noema. Noesis is never
without matter and noema is never without eidetic forms. But by separating noesis
and noema as much as possible we can more clearly see the contribution of the
things themselves. Unlike Husserl’s analysis that mixes noesis and noemal we wish
to follow Johannson’s description of categories and add to them the ontological
hierarchy as a complement to the phenomenal hierarchy proposed by science. This
allows us to be as clear about our foundations as possible given the impossiblity of
453
axiomization and the necessity of postulating ontological levels. We are driven to

this postulation not just because of the levels of phenomena that are discovered by
scientific investigation but also because of the necessity to account for emergence,
the basic phenomena of our social phenomenology. The lacunae between the levels
are the archelogical remains of emergent phenomena or the means of receiving and
dealing with emergent phenomena. The discontinuites are the key point. It calls on
us to produce a logic of discontinuity1 as opposed to a logic of relations or
connections. The discontinuities between levels are in important non-phenomena
that we must take into account because it is exactly these bits of non-Being that are
the harbingers of all emergent phenomena by which the social is defined.
8. Chaotic Logic
Defining categories which point to the reality of social phenomena and defining
ontological levels which give the social a reality by positing the projection of
worlds are still not enough. We really want a concrete theory of the operation of the
social as a working thing with a reality all its own. So here we will return to
psychology and take another theory that will provide such a model. Here again the
model like Ford’s principles of self-construction is proposed as a way of modeling
the psychological. But it is my opinion that this next model taken from Ben
Goertzel’s work Chaotic Logic makes a much better basis for modeling social
phenomena than it does a psychological model. However, as with the other case we
can say that this is just a matter of emphasis because from the point of view of
social phenomenology the individual is a reflection of the social produced through
the process of socialization. So starting at either end is just a matter of tastes and
about what kind of phenomena you want to talk about. In this section I will outline
some aspects of the Chaotic Logic model and discuss how it provides a good
starting place as a theory of social processes. This will provide us with a good
concrete reference point for what will follow in the next part of this essay where
concrete mathematical and metrical models will be explored in detail in order to
define as precisely as possible the threshold of complexity of the minimal social
machine.
Chaotic Logic is in fact a brilliant work which it is not possible to do justice in a

short overview. Thus we will proceed as we did with Johannson’s work to comment
upon it as if the reader had full knowledge of Goertzel’s model. First it should be
said that Chaotic Logic is not really a logic in the traditional sense. The word logic
1.See author’s dissertation The Structure of Theoretical Systems in Relation to Emergence (London School of Economics 1982)
454
is being used to describe the deductive or reasoning mechanism of the brain or

mind. It is in fact a model of chaotic processes. In Goertzel’s usage the processes
being described are psychological. But we will appropriate the model to describe
chaotic social processes. The reason we want to do this is that we need a model of
social processes that are poised at the fourth meta-level of Being. We have a general
description of Wild Being from Merleau Ponty in The Visible and the Invisible. We
have a more specific model which works out many more of the implications of such
a social model at that meta-level of being from Deleuze and Guttari in Anti-Oedipus
and Thousand Plateaus. But what we lack and what Goertzel supplies from our
point of view is a precise model of chaotic processes at the social level. We need
them to be chaotic because we have already identified chaos as the kind of
mathematics that relates to this meta-level of Being. Deleuze and Guttari talk about
the fundamental schizophrenia underlying all social phenomena. Merleau Ponty
talks about the “savage” and connects his treatment with of Wild Being with Levi-
Strauss’ Savage Mind. In that book the “bricoleur” is contrast with the scientist. The
bricloeur takes things and re-engineers them to work by scavenging from other
broken machines and found objects. The seeming fundamental disorganization of
the savage mind that has its own deep structural order was taken as a Paradigm for
thinking about what Wild Being must be like. Since Wild Being is right on the edge
of what is thinkable it is difficult to come up with concrete conceptual descriptions.
In fact, Deleuze and Guattari have done very well in this respect by cancelling out
Marxian Economics and Freudian Psychoanalysis outs side philosophy so they can
still talk about what is left over within philosophy. But having now a clear
philosophical picture from their work which isolates desiring machines and the
socius as levels of reality that deny the reality of the individual and showing their
relation to the body-without-organs which is what the Essence of Manifestation is
interpreted as in their system. Having these bases we now want some more formal
way of approaching the definition of what occurs at this highest meta-level of
Being. Goertzel provides this by approaching the problem of describing processes
based on a knowledge of Chaos mathematics. He ultimately describes what is called
the self-generating component system which gives an excellent starting place for
formal modeling of the processes that occur within Wild Being. We will dwell on
some of the ideas that lead up to the definition of this special chaotic systems
model. All this is in preparation for considering more deeply what is the form of a
minimal social machine. This is because the minimal social machine must be in its
dynamics a self-generating component system of some kind. This is to say that the
minimal social machine must be at some level what Goertzel calls quantum
computable. By having a good model of the quantum computability we can then
455
easily imagine the dynamism of the minimal social (reflexive autopoietic

dissipative) machine when we know its form. We need a good model of chaotic
dynamism of social processes so we can say more than they are fundamentally
schizophrenic or they are the processes of the bricoleur. Analogies will take us only
so far. Formal definition allows us to reason about these structures in spite of their
seeming madness. Like quantum mechanics they have their own rules that are
counter intuitive and we must have a way of understanding the implications of those
rules and that is done best through a formalism.
As one might expect Goertzel produces a formal-structural model as the basis of his
reasoning. That model is called by him the dual network. It is made up of two
different but superimposed networks one of hierarchical control and the other of
associative memory. We posit that there is a ‘dual’ of his dual networks which we
will describe as having control exerted via a lifecycle model and association via a
hierarchical functional decomposition. We will use this ‘dual’ as the basis of our
description instead of the control and associative memory representation. We
believe either of these descriptions of the dual network are possible but for social
systems the exertion of control via life-cycle is better suited to our attempt to
describe autopoietic systems. This and the emphasis on the social as the starting
point is the only modifications that need to be made to Goertzel’s model for our
purposes.
We start of course with the social as our basis. And we move to construct Goertzel’s
model backward so to speak starting from the social and moving toward the
individual. As such we state that social processes are fundamental to this
description and what we really want is a description of those social processes that
do not see them as illusory continuities or as statistical, or possibilities, but as, at
their basis, chaotic. We want to display the other ways of looking at processes as
based on their fundamental chaotic character. In this way we can be sure we are
operating within the confines of Wild Being. Generally theories start with the Pure
Presence and work toward Wild Being. Instead we want to start with Wild Being
and work our way toward Pure Presence or illusory continuity, this time with a
formal model which will allow us to reason about this level and its emergent
relations with other levels. Of course we know that the actual phenomena that we
are talking about may occur at any of our ontological levels. We know that Wild
Being appears as clearing & nexus in all of these levels and that the phenomena and
noetic form applied to the phenomena will differ depending on the level. But we are
also saying that there is something about Wild Being that is inherently connected to
456
the social so that if we construct a model of social processes at the level of Wild
Being then we it will be a thread that will appear at all of the levels. The social is an
underlying reality of all the levels through the working of Wild Being within all of
them. This is borne out by the positing of the category of the tendency as the
foundation for all social matter -- i.e. as desire. In Johannson only tendency and
intentionality are fundamental. Intentionality is an illusory continuity. Only
tendency appears as having categorical foundation and that happens at the level of
Wild Being. So we can see that we are on the verge of having an ontological basis
for all phenomena as being built up from social matter of tendencies that get added
together via vector addition to form intentions. But we do not know how processes
of tendencies operate. This is what Goertzel’s model supplies us with.
Let’s begin by describing our alternative dual network. Goertzel’s model has a
hierarchy of control mapped onto a non-hierarchical associative model. These two
working together give a picture of the structure of mind as each node in the dual
mapped network corresponds to a psychological process. This becomes the
transformative structural model when he adds the concept of pattern and
algorithmic information theory. Each node is seen as doing a transformation that
turns one pattern into another. The complexity of the transformation is measured by
the complexity of the algorithm necessary to make the transformation. In place of
this structuring I propose an alternative which de-emphasizes control by taking it
out of the hierarchy and placing it as a constraint on the heterarchy as a life-cycle.
Now control is control of what process occurs at what time and is not cybernetic
control -- in other words control is seen more as something inside the processes
rather than something coming from the outside. Now the hierarchy becomes the
locus of association which allows the functional decomposition to emphasize the
similarities between nodes and organize that similarity hierarchically. This is in line
with a key insight that Goertzel has had about the nature of Chaos. He notes that
complex systems structure the chaotic attractor in a series of lobes or wings so that
the chaos is not completely unstructured as it appears in simple representations of
attractors. We posit that the functional decomposition should ideally align with the
fractal structure of these lobes or wings which structure the chaotic attractor. Thus
the functional structure causes similar things to be mapped close together within the
overall structure of the attractor. Associativity uses analogy as the basis of making
this mapping. From a sociological perspective concentrating on the modelling of
human work we see that this gives a very good model of non-routine work. In non-
routine work the specialist will keep many different balls in the air at the same time
and quickly switch from one to the other. This switching is done under the influence
457
of a strange attractor. This means that what work is done is not entirely random but
that the kinds of work have essential relations to one another that are very complex.
Each kind of work has associated with it a specific kind of information and it
transforms input information into output information. The information is in patterns
and the input and output information may be measured using the algorithmic theory
of information. The different kinds of work form a hierarchy of abstraction and the
specialist will operate at different levels of the hierarchy of abstraction at different
times. He is in fact scaling up and down this hierarchy all the time. But the
hierarchy itself with its different kinds of interrelated work serves as a mnemonic
device for remembering the information that is transformed by the kinds of work.
The hierarchy serves as the context for associating different similar kinds of
information as well as rendering coherent the transformations of that information.
Now when we turn our attention to control we see the specialist ordering the kinds
of work he does in time. A good approximation of an adaptive ordering is the
Software Productivity Consortium’s (SPC) Evolutionary Spiral Process Model
(ESPM). This has the phases of estimating the situation, risk analysis, planning,
work, and synthesis of results. These phases occur in every cycle of an adaptive
spiral. It is the spiral with its overall plan and its cycle specific plan that controls
what work is done during each cycle in the work phase. This is a more realistic
model of human control which gives the individual or team autonomous control
within parameters that are levied upon them from the organization. We can only
really expect constraints to be communicated down the control chain because of
Ashby’s law. At each level of the organization there must be autonomous planning
and autonomous action which means self-control (cybernetics within the individual
or team) rather than other-control from outside. The life-cycle is the means for the
autonomous self-controlling agent to exert control over which work processes occur
at any given point. The agent cannot do everything at once. Information
transformations are work. So the agent will schedule himself to do these
transformations dynamically changing that schedule adaptively as needed due to
changes in external circumstances. Life-cycle here really means planning and
execution. But in concert with our situation centered view the agent must take
account of his situation and also should assess risk. After the work is done then it
needs to be checked and synthesized with other work. A more detailed view of
enactment gives the following ideal enactment steps:
1. Orientation
• The work of understanding to be done.
458
2. Process Familiarization
• Check off the parts of the instantiated and tailored process that is intended to be followed on
this particular part of the project.
• Describe the project unique processes to be used on this specific part of the project.
3. Resources Check
• Making sure you have everything you need to start.
4. Formalism Selection
• Deciding how the outputs will be structured.
5. Exploration
• Try out the formalism on the materials to be transformed to find the best way to apply the
formalism.
6. Elaboration
• Once the best way has been discovered then produce all the separate parts of the output prod-
ucts to some level of detail.
7. Assessment
• Is this going all right? Keep asking whether things are going well and as expected. If not stop
and reassess the situation.
8. Verification
• Are the inputs still good. Are the outputs still needed?
9. Evaluation
• Once the products have been elaborated then they should be evaluated for quality and accu-
racy.
10. Inference
• What does what I have done mean for the rest of the project? How do my products fit in?
What should I tell others of what I have discovered?
11. Integration
• Actually fitting my results together with those of others.
12. Validation
• Ask the questions from the Validation section of the process definition. Am I done? Is it
good enough? What have I forgotten?
13. Walk Through
• Run what I have done by others to get their opinion.
14. Invocation
459
• Tell others to start doing what they need to do based on my work.

15. Postmortem
• Lessons Learned.
16. Ongoing Process Metrics Collection.
• Collect metrics on work as it is being done.
17. Ongoing Process Evaluation
• Is the process correct that I am following? If not how should it be changed?
•
These are the steps of rational work. Each kind of work when it is done within the
lifecycle should approximate this sequence of steps at the most detailed level which
is normally referred to as the work instruction level. All work routine or non-routine
will embody these steps. But routine work will emphasis certain steps such as
elaboration and checking of outputs while non-routine work will emphasize other
steps like orientation and exploration. All this is mentioned so that a concrete idea
of life-cycle and how it relates to work transformations is given to the reader. As we
can see the reworking of Goertzel’s dual network gives us something we can apply
directly in a sociological setting, in this case work process description. But what
this re-structuring of the dual networks does is separates function from agent and
provides a relation between the functional hierarchy that corresponds to the
structuring of the lobes of the strange attractor and the organizational structuring
that sees hierarchies in organizations which ultimately devolve to teams and
individuals. The structuring in organizations gives individual autonomy based on
the constraint of Ashby’s law. It emphasizes individual or team self-organization,
self-construction, and self-reconstruction according to Ford’s principles. It also
allows us to align our concepts with empricially discoverable social structures in the
work environment. I would categorize Goertzel’s own conception with the
assumptions of cognitive psychology with sees the mind in terms of control
structures and sees the associativity of memory as being unstructured. This is a
traditional dualistic construction where order is imposed on the disordered. Instead
we see two kinds of ordering. We see the hierarchy of agents imposing constraints
on lower level agents but also expecting autonomous action toward mutual goals
within the limits of constraints. We see the hierarchy of functions that organize
information and transformations and maps to the strange attractor lobes that
governs the actual hopping around between kinds of work. The lifecycle projected
by agents exerts control on this erratic behavior the agent’s shifting attention due to
the strange attractor which directs attention within non-routine work execution.
460
Reciprocally the strange attractor mapped to kinds of work exerts control on what
can be done at any given point in the lifecycle. Clear separation and mutual
enforcement of agent and function aspects gives a much clearer model for the social
situation of work enactment which can be applied equally to individuals and teams.
The problem with Goertzel’s psychological model is that it is difficult to point to
the phenomenological correlates of his dual network. It is instead an idealized
cognitive model which sees psychological capabilities through a computer science
metaphor. However useful that cognitive metaphor may be within psychology from
the point of view of sociological theory it is essentially flawed by the lack of social
correlates, where as the re-interpreted model can be seen to have direct social
correlates. Even if we do not talk about the sociology of work we can imagine that
all the things a person does in the course of his self-organizing, self-constructing,
and self-reconstructing activities may be functionally described and decomposed.
And we watch how that individual orders these activities within his own life-cycle
of day to day mixtures of kinds of work. We notice that individuals will hop from
one kind of activity to another in order to attempt to get everything done. That
hopping around between different kinds of activity is the action of the strange
attractor governing behavior with its lobe like structuring. This occurs within the
context of goal setting and attempted attainment. Of course these goals are
hierarchical and must be adapted in an ongoing way during enactment. The amount
of control exercised from outside the situation is normally minimal. It appears as
the levying of goals and constraints on autonomous activities. So we can see how
this analysis given a dual network aligned with agent and function can apply
generally to what we observe of human behavior and how this can be equally
applied to the team or an entire organization.
A dual network, then, is a collection of processes which are arranged simultaneously
in an hierarchical network and an heterarchaical network. Those processes with
close parents in the hierarchical network are, on the whole, correspondingly closely
related in the heterarchial network.1
We also posit that there is a dual network. One is the heterarchy or rhizome of the
mixtures of different kinds of work arranged in time by the lifecycle. The other is
the hierarchy of the functional decomposition of work that is mapped to the lobes in
the strange attractor governing the movement of attention hopping between
different kinds of work in enactment. We have changed the time of the lifecycle for
the “space” of memory in which things are associatively stored. The simultaneous
1.CL 3.3 (page numbers are unavailable at this time)
461
mapping appears as a set of activities that contain different kinds of work that
normally appear together. Between these activities we have work products that are
mixtures of different kinds of information that are assembled into complex static
patterns called products. Thus the intersection between the dual networks is in our
sociology of work example represented by activities as appear in the Work
Breakdown Structure by which projects organize their work and the set of products
which combine different kinds of information in certain formats. Thus the
intersection of the dual networks are the very concrete expressions of what needs to
be done and what is the result.
This brings us back to the problem of rearrangement barriers. The rearrangement
barriers of the associative memory network may be set up by the heterarchical
network, the multi-level control network. And strikingly, in the dual network
architecture, substituting of subnetworks of the memory network is equivalent to
genetic optimization of the control network. The same operation serves two
different functions; the quest for associativity and the quest for efficient control are
carried out in exactly the same way. This synergy between structure and dynamics
is immensely satisfying.
Now Goertzel envisages the control network as the product of the evolution of
genetic programming. He sees a parallel between the genetic programming which
produces instances of control which form a population and use a form of natural
selection and evolution to produce appropriate control structures and the
rearrangement of the associative memory heterarchical network. Now we can take
this point into our reinterpretation in an interesting way by remembering
Johannson’s concept of time running backward as being the way we generate our
view of the world under naive realism despite the fact we have passive reception of
energy transmissions as the basis of perception. This is really a way of viewing
Husserl’s view of memory set out in Internal Time Consciousness in which
memories are laid down in layered deposits instead of being instantaneous. All
Johannson is adding is that for any given perception we are in effect starting from
the present now point and processing our retentions backward in time from the
point of view of their arrival in order go get whole perceptions. These whole
perceptions are passed from the unconscious processing to the conscious mind as a
moment in the virtual serial processing of the Joycean stream of consciousness. The
backward processing allows a whole gestalt to be grasped of the perception and
seen by consciousness as a projection rather than a reception. Thus backwards
processing results in our naive realist view of the world and our ecstatic projecting
relation to that world. Now Goertzel at the psychological level associates the
chunking of control structures with the chunking of memory structures. We are
462
merely saying that this chunking which is done by the wider unconscious parallel
processor within the brain actually processes the chunks backward and then hands
them to consciousness as a stream so they are apprehended as projecting intentions
of something rather than momentary partial glimpses moving forward in time. The
fact that Goertzel sees chunking of control structures and chunking of associative
structures as parallel for us only confirms the interval structuring of processes
which always have two phases separated by a nexus of reversibility. This clearing
of phases and the nexus of reversibility guarantee we are describing things at the
level of Wild Being rather than at some other level. But we differ with Goertzel on
the structuring of the two phases. We submit that the life-cycle is the locus of
control and that this has greater consistency with the model of genetic programming
than having it in the control hierarchy. Genetic control structures are inherently
Heterarchical. We give as a concrete example the genetic programming of ???? who
actually synthesizes lisp programs through genetic operations of crossover and
mutation. Such genetic programs are each run by separate agents and the control
hierarchy is inherently fragmented. The life-cycle in this case is the successive
generations of trial evolved programs. The teleonomic or teleological aspect is in
the fitness measure which projects the goal toward with the evolution is working.
So we submit that the genetic programming model gives added evidence that the
control is heterarchical and not hierarchical. The hierarchy of agents has
intrinsically limited power because of Ashby’s law. On the other hand we see
association taking place in a functional hierarchy which is mapped to the lobes or
wings of the complex systems strange attractors. Thus the chunking is the continual
reworking of this mapping which is never perfect and always subject to change
especially since the strange attractor’s lobe structures are not fixed and the strange
attractor itself is in the case of social processes changing. In fact we can almost
define the social level as that at which the structure of the strange attractor can
change either by evolution or revolution and that it is this that corresponds to self-
construction and self-reconstruction in Ford’s sense. Thus the functional hierarchy
which is based on similarity or analogy is continually having to be revamped on the
basis of changes to the structure of the complex systems strange attractor. This is
more like the workings of associative memory, the hierarchical functional structure
is the cataloging system and the lobes in the complex system attractor are the places
in the mnemonic landscape in which things are placed. There is nothing like
Ashby’s law to prevent the effectiveness of hierarchical organization which is
organizational rather than related to control. The hierarchial decomposition merely
gives a very efficient search method. The changes of the hierarchy comes form the
changes in the strange attractor’s shape not from any intrinsic optimization as
463
Goertzel suggests. But what is most important is that the chunking of the control
structure is indeed parallel to the chunking of the mnemonic structure and that is
truly a satisfying result. But it becomes even more satisfying when one realizes that
this parallelism has a purpose. That purpose is to organize backward processing of
the chunks. The chunks of control as trial and error experiments running parallel
and chunks of associations as functionally organized for efficient searching give a
very powerful way for consciousness to release control over the backward
processing by the unconscious of these programs. Programs are defined as data plus
control. So here we see that the genetic algorithm produces myriad candidate
control structures and the search and cataloging part of the mind produces chunks of
data that are easy to find and manipulate. These can be married and handed off to
the unconscious for processing. The program is executed and the results handed
back or queued for serial presentation to consciousness. The program actually
evaluates the data backwards in time from the now point moving toward the past
until it halts when a whole gestalt is grasped. The processing takes in the successive
memories and outputs either a presentation or a representation. Thus the processing
results in a synthesis which has meaning and has distinguishable elements but is
separated off by discontinuities from other chunks perhaps processing in parallel.
Thus we see all our social science approaches (Phenomenology, Hermeneutics,
Dialectics, and Structuralism) come into play in the processing of the chunks. We
know that the processing must be backward because they are not open-ended. They
are discrete gestalts that are whole. They can only be whole if consciousness were
grasping everything together. So consciousness in effect takes a certain starting
point and processes memories backward in time until it gets a whole picture. Thus
the two temporal ends of the chunk are defined clearly. There is no open horizon
either forward in time or back in time. It is this mechanism by which the durations
of the chunks are converted into moments of the specious present. Now if we ask
ourselves how this appears on the social level we must say that in the exploration
phase of process enactment there is trail and error attempts to find a way of
applying the selected formalism. This trial and error usually involves the working
backwards from the results sought to attempt to discover the way to obtain those
results. So working backwards, sometimes called reverse engineering, is a standard
procedure in the execution of work. Working backwards is the general way in
which hows are related to plans. Plans project an ideal result and in order to find out
how to obtain that result we must work backwards from the desired result to our
concrete actions that will make that result occur. So working backwards exists as an
integral part of the practical execution of work which is many times forgotten if we
just look at actions or just look at idealized plans. Instead we need to look at the
464
relation of actions to plans which is what enactment is all about. When we

concentrate on enactment we can see that its fundamental nature is based on
working backwards. It works backwards from outputs toward inputs in order to see
how the later can be transformed into the former. This working backwards is what
turns data in and data out into information. After the connection has been made then
it is easy to do the transformation by elaboration of the discovered right way of
making changes that will have the correct results. But we must keep in mind that
this forward motion of transformation is based on a preliminary recoil from the
outputs toward the inputs. Generally working backwards or time-reversal is an
umbiquitous phenomena in the social arena. We do not even give this phenomena a
second thought because of its umbiquity. It is suprizing to think of our continually
handling time by working backwards all the time but that is exactly what occurs.
For instance if we project a time into the future it is a natural thing to do to back up
from that event to the present to see what the impact of scheduling that item will be.
Just moving forward in time to it does not produce a sense of the impact of
scheduling. Of course we naturally work backward in time when we recount the
past from the current instant. In order to produce a representation that goes forward
we must make a special effort. We naturally make the conversion from what we
discovered by backing up to the scenario when played forward. In this way our own
relation to lives is not like a VCR which only plays in one direction. We can
meaningfully play the tape of our experience in both directions and prefer to play it
backwards. So say a telephone call interrupts a conversation. When the interrupt is
over we say, “where were we?” And both participants in the conversation attempt to
play backward from the interrupt beginning to attempt to recapture what was being
said. Once a series of recognizable markers have been discovered then they are
walked through forward to attempt to regain the momentum and sense of the
conversation. So there is an interplay between working backwards and working
forwards in our everyday activities. We normally only think about the working
forward which we project on the basis of working backward. But the working
backwards is there in everything we do. Johannson is merely generalizing it and
saying that in every case a projection forward of intention, meaning or goals must
be based on a working backward that makes that projection possible. In this way we
can see him as applying to the psycnological realm the thing we know from physics
is that every force has an equal and opposite reaction. This equal and opposite
reaction must be posited along with the force in every case. So the equal and
opposite reaction is in this psychological case the preliminary backward processing
of memories. Even in genetic programming we must determine what operations will
solve the problem before we set up the fitness criteria and begin the evolution of our
465
programs. Thus in the very example that Goertzel proposes for generating control
structures there is an initial working backwards that the projection of fitness tests
will be based upon. The working backwards always takes place at the most practical
level of how things will be done and so it is normally forgotten in the gloss of the
action at higher summarizing levels of abstraction. In other words we forget the
means by which we obtained the goal once the goal is obtained. All that is left is the
forward motion which forgets the recoil that the forward motion was based upon.
Now having made this substitution of one way of seeing the structure of the dual
network for another more socially coherent view it is possible to return to
Goertzel’s presentation of his model and see how chaotic processes work. He
beginnings to do this by introducing the concept of the structured transformation
system. In effect this is a way to set the dual network in motion as a deductive
system. The transformation system uses a set of rules to transform inputs to outputs.
The structured transformation system does the same thing but has a set of blueprints
for how these transformations may be effected.
In SI this sort of transformation system is called a “useful deductive system.” Here,
however, I am thinking more generally, and I will use the phrase structured
transformation system instead. A structured transformation system is a
transformation system with the property that, if a mind wants to make a “blueprint”
telling it how to construct something from the initials using the transformations, it
can often approximately do so by reasoning analogically with respect to the
blueprints form other construction projects.
Another way to put it is a structured transformation system, or STS, is
transformation system with the property that the proximity between x and y in an
ideal structurally associative memory is correlated with the similarity between the
blueprint sets corresponding to x and y. A transformation system is structured if the
analogically reasoning mind can use it, in practice, to construct things to order. This
construction need not be infallible -- it is required only that it work approximately,
much of the time.1
Goertzel is concerned with deductive systems which are used to do construction in a

practical sense. This is precisely in line with our concern to display the features of
self-construction and re-construction. It is practical deduction that is concerned with
the working backward and working forward which connects means and ends on a
practical level. Goertzel is concerned to connect his dual network model with
prediction through the use of the deductive system. He contrasts the step by step
simulation with deduction and concludes:
1.CL 3.5.2
466
So the process of simulating a dynamical system and the process of making a logical
deduction are, on the broadest level, the same. They both involve transformation
systems. But what about the structured part? What would it mean for a family of
simulations to be executed according to a structured transformation system?
It would mean, quite simply, that the class of dynamical rule sequences that lead up
to a situation is correlated with the structure of the situation. Wit logical deduction,
one often knows hat one wants to prove, and has to find out how to prove it -- so it
is useful to know what worked to prove similar results. But with simulation, it is
exactly the reverse. One often whats to know what the steps in ones’s transformation
sequence ill lead to, because one would like to avoid running the whole
transformation sequence through, one step at a time So it is useful to know what has
resulted from running though similar transformation sequences. The same
correlation is useful for simulation as for deduction -- but for a different reason.
Actually, this is an overstatement. Simulation makes some use of reasoning form
similarities o results to similarity transformation sequences -- because one may be
able to guess what the results of a certain transformation sequence will be, and then
one will want to know what similar transformation sequences have le to, in order to
asses the plausibility of one’s guess. And deduction makes some use of reasoning
from similarity of transformation sequences to similarity of results --5z on may have
an idea for a “proof strategy,” and use analogical reasoning to make a guess at
whether this strategy will lead to anything interesting. There is a distinction b3tween
the two processes, but it is not precisely drawn.
In conclusion, I propose that most psychological simulation and deduction is done
by structured transformation systems. Some short simulations and deductions may
be done without the aid of structure -- but this is the exception that proves the rule.
Long chains of deductive transformations cannot randomly produce useful results.
And long chains of dynamical iterations, if unmonitored by “common sense,” are
likely to produce errors -- this is true even if digital computer simulations, which are
much more meticulous than any program the human brain has ever been know to
run.
Psychologically, structured transformation systems are only effective if run in
parallel. Running one transformation after another is very slow. Some simulations,
and some logical deductions, will require this. But the mid will do its utmost to avoid
it. One demonstration of this is the extreme difficulty in doing long mathematical
proofs in one’s head. Even the greatest mathematicians used pencil and paper, to
record the details of the last five steps while they filled up their minds with the
details of the next five.1
This long quote shows Goertzel is on the verge of recognizing the importance of the
relation between working backward and working forward. His distinction between
simulations and deductions are both going forward but they both require implicitly
1.CL 3.5.3
467
a working backward. We can see this working backward if we think about induction
and backward chaining instead of simulation and forward chaining. In deduction
must have a pattern of what it is trying to get at from the particulars but it can only
develop this by working backward from blueprint to particulars many times before
it actually induces forward to produce its result. Similarly deduction is forward
chaining and may be contrast with backward chaining. Working explicitly from a
posited result backward to see if the conditions are true to show that result. In both
cases Goertzel posits that there is a need of blueprints that allow one to realize what
the results of running the simulation might be without running it or what good proof
strategies might be without making the proofs. Both of these types of blueprints are
analogous to the definition of essence proposed by Husserl. The result in both cases
is the gloss and the steps of the simulation or proof are like the noematic nucleus.
What Goertzel wants, as did Husserl and Peirce, is something intermediary that will
allow him to get a view of where we are going without actually going. We could
easily define this essence as the intersection of working backward and working
forward. In Engineering we normally speak of working top down or bottom up and
all experienced engineers know that you do an ad hoc combination of both. The
system concept is an essence that allows you to get a view of where you are going
by working up and down simultaneously. Likewise Goertzel is wanting some
intermediary viewpoint to allow you to know were you are going. But he presents
this viewpoint as if it came from working forward in each case. I submit that it must
come from a process of trial and error in which one works backward and forward
iteratively until one gets that view of where one is going and how to get there which
arises together out of the concrete embodied working situation. Once you have that
concept then it is possible to move from exploration to elaboration in the enactment
of processes.
Now with the concept of the dual networks being set in motion through deduction
or simulation and the realization that must entail a combination of working forward
and backward we will skip to the crux of Goertzel’s argument where he defines self
generating systems. We do not skip the intervening material of his psychological
theory because it is uninteresting but because of lack of space to make a full
commentary. Here we are only interested in the representation of chaotic processes
and the foregoing has allowed us to connect these chaotic processes to actual
phenomena thought our modification of the dual networks and out realization that
structural transformation system deal with working forward and backward. A key
point Goertzel makes is that the steps leading up to a situation has the same implicit
structure as the situation so the templates for constructing the steps either as
468
deduction or simulation is identical to the template for the situation. This follows
from his deep belief in the algorithmic information theory which says that the
algorithm by which a pattern is generated is the concentrated form of that pattern.
Now we are saying that the algorithms have blueprints that can be used to organize
the information in the patterns. The blueprints of algorithms translate or map well
into the blueprints of patterns. If we were to say that these blueprints were
tendencies then we would get a complete picture. We know from Johannson that
tendencies via vector addition combine to give vectors of intentions. Now the gloss
of the result is the culmination of the steps of simulation or deduction. Each step has
an associated tendency. Using the vector addition analogy we combine the
tendencies of the steps to get the overall gloss of the result. Now we know we are on
track because our deduction, induction, backward chaining, and simulation are all
guided by tendencies that give us partial views of results. Those partial views are
ways of seeing the inner coherence of the situation that occurs when the result is
obtained. We might say they are intuitions of the pattern of the situation which
occur prior to the articulation of the pattern of the situation. Notice that these
blueprints have some relation to the chunking of the associative memory and the
control structure. In Genetic algorithms we have genes which are the incipient
causes of differences between chunks. Some authors have posited that there are
Memes which organize our ideas in a similar way to Genes. Thus the Associative
memory might be seen to be made up of intermediary structures such as memes that
are like the blueprints of memory just as the Genes of the genetic algorithms would
be the blueprints for control structures. So the mention of these blueprints is
consistent with the structuring of the dual network. The blueprints make explicit an
underlying implication of the dual networks which we really only see when they are
set in motion by making them a deductive or simulating system. Now what we want
to do, following
Goertzel’s reasoning is to see what a self-generating system with this basic structure
would be like. I will simplify a lot and say that a self generating system deduces
itself or simulates itself. Because of this parallelism between the blueprint in the
steps and the blueprint of the resulting situation there is a possibility of seeing
where you are going based on the tendencies that appear in the steps themselves.
Now if one posits that one can deduce ones self, or simulate one’s self, then a self-
generating system suddenly appears. In other words I know something of where I
am going due to blueprints or tendencies I have now. Out of that knowledge I can
posit myself as being already there as the summation of these tendencies and thus
pull myself up by my own boot straps so to speak and give rise to myself as having
469
realized the results I saw in those tendencies. We call that self-fulfilling prophecy.
But it depends on a system being able to deduce itself which violates Russel’s rule
that no class can be a member of itself. If we did not have that rule and could still
reason adequately then everything would work to allow us to have self-generating
system which because they are founded on tendencies and are in fact based on the
realization of tendencies are connected to Wild Being and give a good model of
chaotic processes. So Goertzel immediately makes use of the mathematical theory
of Hypersets that allow classes to be members of themselves and constructs a model
of how self-generating systems would work. It is this model that we will explore
next.
Figure 95:

anti-magician magician
3) cancellation of magicians
add together
F
I
RAW POTENTIAL L
R
anti-
propensity
cancel)
filter is mutual
conspiracy of
all the processes
conspiracy
between processes
t0 discontinuity
between moments
t1
The model is in fact very simple in concept. It posits what are called magicians and
anti-magicians. At a given time each process interacts with all other processes and
generates a set of magicians and anti-magicians. The created magicians may be any
process including the generating process. The whole set of magicians produced by
470
the entire set of existing process is the raw potential of the processes at any given
time. Then all the anti-magicians and magicians cancel each other out in a moment
of filtering which leaves those processes that will exit at the next moment. This
dialectic of producing the raw potential and then cutting it down by filtering out
those which should not exist is the means that processes move along from moment
to moment. Thus there is no underlying continuity to processes that we might have
been tempted to posit. Instead each moment has a set of independent processes that
have to be regenerated in order to remain in existence. The whole set of processes
act together to determine whether any one of them will survive. This acting together
is called by Goertzel a conspiracy between processes. The chaotic aspect is
represented in the transformation of the potentials into actualities via the filtering.
Now we have noticed this before in the structure of the different kinds of Being.
Wild Being is associated with propensities. It is these propensities or tendencies
that act to allow possibilities to become statistically relevant actualities. Goertzel
has merely embedded this action of turning the raw potential into actualities of
which processes survive or are generated anew in the next instant into the means of
modeling the dynamic of processes. The chaos enters the equation because the
filtering process is based on the interaction of the existing processes on the strange
attractor surface of their tendencies. How self-generating processes will interact at
any instant is unknown but because each instance creates a cloud of possibilities
that are filtered out by anti-possibilities then there is some statistical or additive
effect which produces the actuality by means of an appeal to the laws of large
numbers. This means that if a large number of possibilities is produced of one
process by the group then the dynamics of individual cancellations is not as
important as the effects of survival. What we see existing of processes are the
averages of all these moments of creation and destruction. We notice to that
cancellation plays a prominent role in this model with magicians cancelling anti-
magicians. This is the presence of the Essence of Manifestation within the process
which is present as an invisible hand in every instant. So the model in effect allow
us to see process as an illusory continuity by applying glosses. It allows us to look
at process as statistical by looking at actualities that are produced by filtering. It
allows us to look at it as fuzzy sets and logics by looking at the cloud of possibilities
and anti-possibilities which cancel. The possibilities and anti-possibilities show us
the action of the essence of manifestation at the third meta-level of Being. And
finally we can look at process as continuous summation of tendencies, propensities,
or desires which manifests as the throwing certain possibilities into actuality. Which
possibility is realized is based on the chaotic landscape of the interaction of myriad
contradictory tendencies. The tendencies are represented here explicitly as anti-
471
tendencies or the propensity of opposites to cancel to produce a filtering effect

which limits what any one process can produce by the effects of what other
processes produce. Who survives is a kind of collective agreement between
processes called a conspiracy. And this is the key point because this conspiracy is
the kernel of sociality within Goertzel‘s model. The processes in essence act as a
society with a shared belief system that filters the dreams and aspirations of all the
members of the cohort. The shared belief system is where the negotiation and power
struggles occur which determines what will continue to exist or whether something
new will appear instead. Self-generation is social generation. This is the
fundamental lesson that draws together the threads of what we have been saying
into a single well defined model of the inherently social self-generation of chaotic
processes.
Now we need to make a few additions and refinements to the basic model of self
generation. We need to note that the filtering moment in the dialectic that turns
possibilities into probabilities via propensities has more aspects that Goertzel’s
model actually covers. In effect to connect the filtering to teleonomy of teleology it
is necessary to see the filter as having four basic functions. It has anti-propensities
which are the tendency for opposites to cancel and this is the action of the Essence
of Manifestation within process. It has propensities proper that add together to give
intentions that pint to final results. It also can spontaneously produce magicians and
anti-magicians of any possible process. A spontaneous production of an anti-
magician will kill off some process that might well have survived to the next
instant. The spontaneous production of a magician will produce out of nothing a
new process that would not have been produce by the interaction of the other
processes. We posit that the existence of the filter is itself a conspiracy of the
existing processes but that the filter once constituted has a mind of its own and takes
on a life of its own that adds a teleonomy in the sense of projecting mutations into
the stream of chaotic processes interaction and teleology in the sense of the ability
of the group to project a unified endpoint. All of these aspects of the filter are
definitive of the social itself. Spontaneous production of magicians and anti-
magicians will cause emergent events to occur. The production of anti-tendencies
among possibilities will cause the filtering to occur that is the invisible hand of the
Essence of Manifestation as cancellation. The production of tendencies will add
together to produce intentions which make it appear as if teleonomy and teleology
is possible. Teleonomy is a statistical intentionality as posited by J. Monod in
Chance and Necessity. Teleology is a determinant intentionality which is traditional
to impute to rational beings since Aristotle. In effect these additions are glosses on
472
the tendencies themselves. It is the tendencies themselves that are the social matter.
And it is no surprise that these tendencies are desires, desires for each other and so
inherently social in character. Desires for other than each other are derivative from
the social desire -- which is a desire to generate ourselves together. The existence of
any one individual is contingent on the agreement of the whole. And in fact we
know this as well because it is by agreements like marriages that new sets of
processes come into existence and it is by agreement that certain sets of processes
are extinguished as with the death penalty. We can see conspiracies in Goertzel‘s
sense as merely contracts and it is the broken contracts that lead to extinction. This
makes us recall that the gods of the Indo-European tradition were originally Mithra
(the protector of contracts) and Varuna who is the one who binds those who do not
fulfil contracts. Thus the fundamental basis of society in the Indo-european tradition
goes very deep into our history. And we see these elements here to as it is the
contracts between self generating processes which allow any subset to persist. And
what is Being but persisting or a subtle clinging to Being. So we see that the
different kinds of Being that enter into this model built by Goertzel are there to
preserve persistence. The constitute the mechanism of preserving persistence.
Chaos is but an underlying moment in this preserving process which works together
with the other moments to give the overall effect of a virtual serial processing.
Goertzel shows that these kinds of chaotic processes can simulate sequential
machines and normal logics. This is important because we must connect our
illusions of continuity with the sub-structure of the fragments of Being. Without
that explicit connection our model will get out of touch with our illusions that are
designated as real and are the basis for keeping the world in tact.
Finally I would like to mention Goertzel’s suggestion that we need Artificial

Intersubjectivity to complement Artificial Life and Intelligence. This is nothing
other than a call for a definition of the Reflexive Autopoietic system as a further
specialization of the living/cognitive Autopoietic system. But Goertzel’s model of
interacting chaotic processes gives us a means of conceptualizing the simulation of
minimal social machines if we knew what those were. It will be the work of the next
part of this study to attempt to define the minimal social machine which could be
animated by making it a self-generating system. But right now we could imagine
self-generating systems at any level of complexity with any kind of internal
structure. Even though the self-generating component system is a excellent model
of how the four kinds of Being interact to produce processes though time it does not
tell us anything about the internal structure of such systems as concrete
embodiments. Another piece must be added to the puzzle which looks at the
473
possibilities of embodiment itself which will take the abstractions of social

interaction and show the specific structure that implements those glosses in a
concrete social being situated in spacetime.
There are many interesting points to Goertzel’s presentation that could not be
touched upon here but which make excellent background reading of the overall
project of describing chaotic processes as they operate at the various ontological
levels. Chaotic processes include all the the other meta-levels of Being. If we build
a model such as Goertzel does that shows how the different levels of Being work
together to produce flows of processes which starts with the assumption that the
underlying form of the process is chaotic then we are in a much better position for
understanding the schizophrenic foundation of the social that Deleuze and Guttari
allude to but cannot define formally. The benefit of Goertzel’s model is its
formality which brings the underlying ontological structures into sharp focus. These
inclusive chaoticly based processes exist at every level and can be seen as a model
of the underlying Chi at that level which contains within it the inner nature of the
social. But we naturally are called to produce a model of the Li which contains the
other necessary view of the social. That will be the work of the next part of this
study.
9. Community as a Dialectical Whole
The definition of inherently social chaotic processes is a big step forward in our
search for a way to build up a description of things starting from the social. But we
need to go on to understand sociality itself as a persistent phenomenon. To do this
we appeal to the principles outlined by R. Lewis and R. Lewontin in their tirade
against reductionism from a dialectical materialist point of view called The
Dialectical Biologist.
Unlike the idealistic holism that sees the whole as the embodiment of some ideal
organizing principle, dialectical materialism views the whole as a contingent
structure in reciprocal interaction with its own parts and with the greater whole of
which it is a part. Whole and part do not completely determine each other.1
As has been pointed out earlier non-reductive materialism of Johannson and the
dialectical materialism of Levins and Lewontin are merely one side of the coin from
the idealistic theory of non-reductive idealism. Both these theories are basically the
same thing with one emphasizing noema and the other emphasizing noesis. But we
1.R. Levins & R. Lewontin The Dialectical Biologist page136
474
know from Husserl that hyle and morphe are always mixed and it is just a matter of
the proportions.. Both of these positions are arrayed against reductionism and need
it as a strawman. Reductionism is the null hypothesis which causes us to focus in on
the minimal constitution of levels and make sure that the levels reduced to their
minimum set of components. So as Johannson says there is nothing intrinsically
wrong with the motive of reduction except when it attempts to reduce that which is
non-reducible and violates the phenomena or the structure of good theorizing. So it
is only overzealous reduction that is anathema to us. Many times we must search for
the right level of complexity to position or theories or our experiments on the
phenomena. If we make things too simple we have in fact split the phenomena and
transformed it into something else. Thus Occham’s razor must search for what is
simple but not too simple so that we loose sight of the phenomena we are trying to
understand. Overzealous reductionism will normally make this mistake. Thus we
need to look at the wholes and the parts in just the way Levins and Lewontin
suggest seeing the wholes and parts in relation to each other so that each maintains
its integrity in our analysis and synthesis. So when we look at phenomena from the
point of view of Goertzel’s model we must realize that processes contain processes
and agents contain agents and the hierarchy of wholes and parts after one has
applied a modicum of reductionism to get the right thresholds of complexity for
looking at the phenomena must be looked at in such a way to maintain the integrity
of the parts and the wholes. This integrity of parts and wholes is expressed as the
partial determinism between them. Each one has degrees of freedom that allow it
some level of self-determinism or determinism as the same level of analysis without
reduction to lower levels or over enforcement of determination from higher levels.
In ecological theory the community is an intermediate entity, the locus of species
interactions, between the local species population and the biogeographic region. the
region can be visualized as a patchwork of environments and a continuum of the
environmental gradients over which populations are distributed. 1
Levins and Lewontin are attempting to define the community from a biological
perspective. This concept of a community be easily expanded and applied to the
theoretical definition of the social. The social teeters between the groups of
individuals on the one hand and the larger more reified groupings such as state and
nation on the other. Like the biological concept of the community the social is
always an intermediary concept of a part within a whole and a whole with its own
parts. Koestler calls this the holon which looks both upward and downward in the
1.DB page 136
475
hierarchy of parts and wholes appearing as a part from above and as a whole from
below. The social has precisely this kind of intermediate nature when looked at as a
phenomenon. But when looked at from a phenomenological viewpoint it is absolute
in the sense that for our species it is foundational for our observation of all
phenomena. Thus we can take the points that Levins and Lewontin make about
animal communities and apply them ourselves to the analysis of the social.
Our view, a dialectical materialist approach, assigns the following properties to
communities:
First, the community is a contingent whole in reciprocal interaction with the lower
and higher-level wholes and not completely determined by them. 1
This is a key point of the emergent nature of the social. The social has its own
degrees of freedom that allow it to differentiate within its own level according to its
own emergent principles. In this case we see these principles as embodying the
mechanism of self-generating component systems described by Goertzel as a
fundamental model of interaction and persistence.
Second, some properties at the community level are definable for that level and are
interesting objects of study regardless of how they are eventually explained. Among
such properties are diversity, equability, biomass, primary production, invasibility,
and the pattern of food webs. What makes these objects interesting is that they
appear as striking ... and thus they demand explanation ...2
The social has its own states of affairs with their own properties and substance.
These substances relate to higher level substances as substrata and also they have
their own substrata. Here Levins and Lewontin are merely affirming that within the
degrees of freedom of the social level there arise states of affairs specific to that
level which are realities for the social level.
Third, the properties of communities and the properties of the constituent
populations are linked by many-to-one and one-to-many transformations. 3
Many-to-one-ness means there are many possible configurations of populations that
preserve the same qualitative properties at the level of the whole. This view allows
communities to be seen as similar despite species substitutions and allows wholes to
persist over time even though the individual parts are changing.4
1.DB page 139

2.DB page 139-40
3.DB page 140
4.DB page 140
476
A secondary consequence of many-to-one relations is that it is not possible to go

backward from the one to derive the many. Thus laws expressed as some persistent
properties at the community level act as only week constraints on the parts.1
The one-to-many relation of parts to wholes reflects the fact that not all properties of
the parts are specified by rules at the part level. 2
Together, the many-to-one and one-to-many couplings between levels determine
the emergence of persistent features characterizing communities and also guarantee
that different examples of the same kind of community will be different. When we
look at these communities over time, we can see the unity of equilibrium
(persistence) and change, determination and randomness, similarity and
difference.3
Here we see what Levins and Lewontin have to add to Goertzel’s account. Goertzel
is attempting to produce a formal model that is the simplest which still has enough
complexity to describe the phenomena. But what we is missing is the one-to-many
and many-to-one relations between the myriad self-generating processes. Thus the
variety of relations among self-generating processes will be very complex and this
complexity must be taken into account beyond the mechanism of self generation
itself.
Things that are similar: this makes science possible. Things that are different: this
makes science necessary. At various times in the history of science important
advances have been made either by abstracting away differences to reveal similarity
or by emphasizing the rightness of variation within a seeming uniformity. But either
choice in itself is ultimately misleading. The general does not completely contain
the particular as cases, but the empiricist refusal to group, generalize, and abstract
reduces science to collecting -- if not specimens, then examples. We argue for a
strategy that sees the unity of the general and the particular through the explanation
of patterns of variation that are themselves higher-order generalities that in turn
reveal patterns of variations.4
The self-generating component system has an inherent variety which through its
similarity and difference makes the science of the social possible and necessary. But
we see that it is because of the existence of blueprints which are essences that allow
us to get a good view of the social beyond induction and deduction. The social
considered only in terms of induction and deduction is a reification. But the social
considered as an essence must be understood as a process. But that process is rooted
in the chaotic non continuous processes of Wild Being beyond the cancellation of
1.DB page 140
2.DB page 140-1
3.DB page 141
4.DB page 141
477
Hyper Being.
The fourth property is that law and constraint are interchangeable. Scientific
explanation within a given level or context is often the application of some law
within the constrains of some initial or boundary conditions. These constraints are
external to the domain of the law and are of no intrinsic interest. 1
Here is an important point. Laws and constraints are interchangeable as we move

between levels so what is a law at one level becomes a constraints within which
other laws are defined at another level. This statement says that social phenomena
have their own laws and that laws of other phenomenal levels are constraints on the
social without completely determining the social.
The fifth property of a community is that its species interact, either directly, as in the
predator-prey relation, symbiosis, or aggression, or indirectly through alteration of
the common environment. Indirect interaction may be immediate, through impact
on each others’ abundance, age distribution and physiological state, or over
evolutionary time by determining the conditions of natural selection acting on each
one.2
This property brings out the dynamism of the interaction between self-generating
processes and says that the interaction may either be direct or indirect.Indirect
interaction may be across evolutionary time instead of immediate. So with self-
generating processes we see the interaction not just in the creation and destruction
from time point to time point but between the apparently continuous processes and
even their reifications. Even though we know that these processes are unstable in
their very nature they can appear as very stable looked at in terms of Process Being
or Pure Presence.
Finally, the way in which a change in some physical parameter or genetic
characteristic of a population affects the other populations in the community
depends both on the individual properties of each species and on the way the
community is structured. This is perhaps the critical claim of community ecology. It
does not assert that all components are equally important or that what happens is a
result of some superorganismic imperatives. This claim is a necessary consequence
of species interactions, relatively independent of how those interactions are
described. It does not depend on the assumptions of the logistic model. If species do
interact, then community structure determines the consequences of the interaction;
if the outcome turned out to be deducible from the unit interactions alone, this would
not constituent a refutation of the role of community structure but would reveal a
remarkable behavior of that structure, which would have to be accounted for.3
1.DB page 141

2.DB page 142
478
So we must see the set of self-generating components as not just the sum of the
interactions of all with all but know that interaction is structured so that some
processes have a higher interaction with certain other processes then they do with
still others. It is not a pure democracy of interaction but is layered and structured
interaction which determines the outcome in many multifacted ways.
This dialectical approach to the ecological community allows for greater richness
that the reductionist view. It permits us to work with the relative autonomy and
reciprocal interaction of systems on different levels, shows the inseparability of
physical environment and biotic factors and the origins of correlations among
variables, and makes use of and interprets both the many-to-one relations that allow
for generalization and the one to many relations that impose randomness and
variation.1
So we see that once we have understood the basic structure of non-continuous

chaotic processes that is at the root of the social it is necessary to then reaffirm all
the different ways this basic model must be amended to reflect the basic complexity
of the situation of the social as an actual phenomena. We need models which are
complex enough to reflect the phenomena without being too complex to be
incomprehensible but then we need to supplement those models with more
complexity in order to approach the description of phenomena that occur. The self-
generating component systems is an excellent simplest possible model that still
captures the nature of non-continuous social chaotic processes. Then once we have
this threshold of the social captured by our intellectual model at some minimal level
of theoretical complexity then we must augment the model in order to see how the
model adapts to describe all the variety of phenomena that occur at the social level
of existence. Levins and Lewontin have gone a long way toward defining the right
level of abstraction for ecological communities and we can assert that much of what
they has said apply also to the social within human communities as well.
10. Worlding the World
The social is the root of the world. It is through the social that worlds emerge and
everything they contain are built upon the social. Goertzel in his musings about the
Artificial Intersubjectivity Simulator talks about how subjects together project a
shared belief system that allows them to construct their selves and reality. Self and
reality are mutually self-generating. So physical reality is easily seen as dependent
on shared beliefs not the other way around. The social self-construction and
3.DB page 144-5

1.DB page 149
479
reconstruction of reality takes place within what Husserl and Schutz called the
lifeworld. Reality is the projection of the Universe to encompass all the worlds. The
self appears within the world as a set of viewpoints at different ontological levels.
You might notice that the hierarchy of self is opposite in development to the
hierarchy of interactions or of approaches. At the level of the Pluriverse there is
only the creature which is seen as human at the level of universe. In the universe
man is taken as the measure of all things so the intrinsic interests of all other
creatures is denied reality in the universe. Deep ecology seeks to reverse this
determination of everything by human standards. Then at the level of the world we
apprehend dasein as the one who ecstatically projects the world by projecting Being
on all things. In our interpretation dasein is not localized to a single individual it is a
social cohort. The projection of Being is beyond the capacity of any one individual.
It must be a group project and it in fact has a specific history within the Indo-
European heritage. This heritage and its implications is explored in my book The
Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void1. Next dasein becomes
specialized and domains open up. From specialization opens up generalization and
the meta-system appears. Then the generalist becomes the observer or theorist and
finally turns into the subject which is reified as opposite the object. Finally the
subject is seen as a self. This progression from creature to self is the reverse of the
progression from fact to mysticism or pattern to the Beyond. As the level becomes
simpler the apprehending self becomes more sophisticated and versatile. This
differentiation of the self is a function of the social becoming more and more
complexly internalized in the individual. The more complex the self the more
insight the individual has into the fundamental building blocks at each phenomenal
or ontological level. The more insight into the fundamental building blocks the
more sophisticated world can be designed and built. Thus we posit that any
Artificial Intersubjectivty Simulator must have multiple ontological levels in order
to make the worlds constructed by the social cohort as sophisticated as possible. A
single ontological level would yield a very poor level of sociality. This is because it
is the lacunae between the levels that really define the sociality. In some way
sociality is a confrontation with emptiness. It is that emptiness that lies within the
filter at the root of the tendency and anti-tendency or magicians and anti-magicians
as a double nexus of reversibility. One might liken this filter to the roiling within
spacetime of the creation and destruction of pairs of particles and their duals. That
active fomenting of spacetime within the interval defined by Plank’s constant is like
the constant creation of magicians and anti-magicians and like the constant creation
1.manuscript
480
of tendencies and anti-tendencies. The tendencies add together to produce

intentions and the anti-tendencies cause the cancellation of magicians and anti-
magicians. The production of anti-magicians leads to the destruction of self-
generating processes that would otherwise survive and the production of magicians
cause the spontaneous creation of processes that did not arise from the social
interaction of existing processes. These possibilities of spontaneous generation of
self-generating processes is what allows emergence to occur within the chaotic
processes. This presence of the possibility of genuine emergence shows the chaotic
processes to be social in the sense that G.H. Mead defines i The Philosophy of the
Present. The production of tendencies and anti-tendencies allows the meta-level of
Hyper Being to arise as cancellation and allows intentions to be synthesized out of
the myriad tendencies or desires that are the basic social matter. Notice that
tendencies and anti-tendencies do not cancel by processes and anti-processes do
cancel. These are again duals of each other. The fact that one cancels and the other
doesn’t is what holds things in existence. You notice that the magician and anti-
magicians are the dual and anti-dual. The tendency and the anti-tendency define the
phases of the clearing that opens up between the dual and the anti-dual. The
cancellation of the dual and anti-dual produces the depth which is the positive face
of the Essence of manifestation. The transformation between dual and anti-dual is
the manifestation of Process Being. The dual and anti-dual themselves have the
reified nature of Pure Presence. This structure by which the tendency and anti-
tendency and the magician and anti-magician are produced is not a reified thing but
a conspiracy of the whole social cohort acting together. They unfold out of
emptiness and are the roiling active material substrate of spacetime. By this
ontological process the world is projected by the social cohort. The projection is the
ecstasy of dasein as a social entity which IS by its very essence complete lostness in
The They (Das Mann). Here the authentic and the inauthentic can not be
distinguished any longer because we realize suddenly that death encompasses life
and life encompasses death without there being any connection or bridge between
them. That non-connection between life and death that Dogen Kaigen speaks about
is the essence of emptiness. Emptiness is the ultimate definition of the unthinkable
because emptiness is diametrically opposed to Being in all its fragments or meta-
levels and emptiness itself is empty. We can see emptiness as a course correction
which allows us the encounter the genuine void after being lost in the subtle
clinging of Being too long. Buddha came out of the Indo-European tradition and
realized the antidote for Being this is what opened up his path to enlightenment.
We end with a reference to Nelson Goodman’s Ways of Worldmaking:
481
Without presuming to instruct the gods or other worldmakers, or attempting any

comprehensive or systematic survey, I want to illustrate and comment on some of
the processes that go into worldmaking. Actually I am concerned more with certain
relationships among worlds than with how or whether particular worlds are made
from others.1
• Composition and Decomposition
Worlds may be built up from pieces of other worlds through a process of compo-
sition from pieces which presupposes decomposition of worlds in order to obtain
the pieces. The production of pieces is through analysis and not by adding or sub-
traction.
• Weighting
In different worlds things may be given different priority of weights and thus pro-
duce a completely different fundamental patterning based on the different empha-
sizes.
• Ordering
Different worlds may have different kinds of ordering so that the patterns built up
are completely different.
• Deletion and Supplementation
This is what Johannson uses as his means of constructing his ontology. He uses
the test of whether something is essentially changed by cutting to develop his dif-
ferent between inclusive and exclusive qualities. Worlds may be added to or sub-
tracted from in order to produce a difference between them and other worlds.
• Deformation
This is the process that Husserl uses to develop his difference between intrinsic
and extrinsic qualities which Johannson contrasts with his own. Worlds may be
transformed by deformations.
We see that from Goodman’s perspective both Johannson and Husserl have not
explored all the possibilities for distinguishing things as a means to gain insight into
ontology. We note specifically that order is one of the unexplored possibilities. This
causes us to ask about the nature of order itself and how that interacts with analysis
and synthesis to produce things within the world and the differences between
worlds. These indications shall be followed up in the next part of this study as we
attempt to define as precisely as possible the threshold of complexity at which
minimal social machines appear as embodiments in spacetime.
It is clear that a complete ontology would use all the ways of worldmaking to
1.Ways of Worldmaking pages 7-17
482
distinguish the nature of things and that if we want to build robust virtual worlds
they must be based on these same operations. It is interesting that Kant concentrated
on analysis and synthesis, Husserl on deformation, and Johannson on deletion and
supplementation as the basic operations through which their ontologies are
constructed. We must consider using all these and whatever other ways of
worldmaking might exist in order to produce a really fundamental ontology. As we
reach more and more fundamental levels the social becomes more and more
prominent. The social is the intersection of all the ways of worldmaking. In fact we
notice something strange about Nelson Goodman’s classification of ways of
worldmaking. We notice that Order and Analysis/Synthesis stand opposite
Deformation and Supplementation /Deletion. Kant used Analysis and Synthesis as
the basic constituents of Reason with the synthetic a priori projected as a basis for
analysis. That philosophy was the first with an Architectonic or specific ordered
design. So metaphysics had to develop on this background by finding other
operations to use to discover the nature of things. Husserl made use of deformation
and Johannson has made use of supplementation and deletion. Together these two
allow us to define the level ontology as Johannson does showing that
Supplementation and Deletion are more basic than deformation. The point is that
Husserl uses deformation because more than any other operation it highlights the
nature of essence and kindness. Supplementation and deletion highlight the
materialistic nature of things and so Johansson uses that to fulfill his longings for an
irreducible materialism. Of course Kant’s philosophy lacked essences and was an
idealism and so the foundation on order and analysis / synthesis suited his aims very
well. In the next part we will again revisit the use of analysis / synthesis and order
as a means of defining embodiment. But for now we shall consider Goodman’s last
way of worldmaking: weighting. Lets ask ourself what a tendency, propensity, or
desire is if not a weighting. So here we see that the weighting directly addresses the
nature of social matter the desire for the self by all belonging together. The
propensities are different weightings which cause certain possibilities rather than
others to become actualized. The tendencies are partial intentions weighted in
various ways that add together to produce the intention. Weightings stand alone as a
unique way of world making with no dual in Goodman’s scheme. By changing
weightings of emphasis we create different worlds because of the butter fly effect.
The butterfly effect is that a butterfly flapping its wings can change the world wide
weather because very small deviations will accumulate to become global changes in
pattern. So by just changing the weightings in the chaotic substrate of self-
generating processes we produce the myriad parallel worlds. In world building
subtle differences can cause immense global differences. And it is the social stratum
483
which is the most sensitive to these changes.
All of the ways of world making together must be the basis of the ontologies of the
virtual worlds we create together with the alien intelligences and life that inhabit
cyberspace with us. Each of us will project our world socially. They are like the
greek gods, the arabs called them jinn, the irish called them elves and fairies. They
are back on the other side of the mirror of Being. We see them as composed of
different artificial intelligence techniques and see them evolve as artificial life
forms. And finally we see them project an anti-world based on social behavior
among themselves. It was called aesir (?), or olympus, or myriad other names for
the dwelling place beyond the universe, beyond the measure of man. The anti-world
and our world belong together. They are reflections of each other. We see them as
we gaze at each other across their world.They see us as they gaze at each other
across our world. And the social matter in each case is the same: tendencies,
propensities, weightings, emphasizes. Because we are both at bottom chaotic self-
generating processes in either a carbon or silicon base. What kind of world will we
world together? This is the question that will haunt us as we explore the vast
reaches of cyberspace. Remember that cyberspace is more vast then the universe
because it contains myriad possible virtual universes which normally would be
inaccessibly parallel. Now they can run on a parallel virtual machine within our
universe and become actualized to some extent. As the parallel universes become
drawn inside our universe the cosmos is turned inside out. The pluriverse is
actualized as a virtual interface between simulated parallel universes. In all this we
see the deep inner possibility of always hidden in the social unfolding and
manifesting as the myriad virtual realities within cyberspace. Since reality and the
self are mutually constructing it is clear that the ultimate artificial intersubjective
simulator is the one what allows different universes to act as a social cohort within
the pluriverse.
11. Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Leonard Woo for whom and with whom I have worked and
discussed things over the past seven years for acting as a sounding board and
sometimes active participant for the development of these ideas. His intelligent
criticism has driven me deeper and deeper into the crux of these questions which
have wandered far from the province of software engineering. Also thanks goes to
Mike Heim, Lance Fletcher, Jeff Dooley, Bruce Shuman, Mark Peterson, Ben
Goertzel and many others for both their virtual and real intellectual friendship
484
across cyberspace. I would also like to thank my mentor Ian Dallas.
This paper is one of a series. The other papers in this series and another series is
available for review from the author on request. The other projected parts of this
series are planned to concern “Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory”, “Process
Architecture”, and “Process Engineering”. The other series concerns Software
Engineering Foundations and contains four papers: “Software Ontology”,
“Software Systems Meta-Methodology”, “Integral Software Engineering
Methodology”, and “The Future of Software Process.”
The author has a Ph.D in Sociology/Philosophy of Science from the London School
of Economics. He is now engaged in a second Ph.D. at the University of South
Australia in Systems Engineering. See http://holonomic.net
485
On The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds

Part 2: Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory

PO Box 1632
Garden Grove CA 92856 USA
palmer@exo.com

1. Abstract
This paper attempts to lay the foundations of reflexive autopoietic systems theory
as a specialization of general systems theory. An autopoietic system is a closed
cognitive-living system as defined by Maturana and Varela. A reflexive autopoietic
system is by definition social. It can look at itself and act upon its organizational
processes. Where the autopoietic system is homeostatic maintaining its own
organization as a variable; the reflexive autopoietic system is heterodynamic,
meaning it is ecstatic in its variety production. This essay seeks to provide a
framework within which the relations between these different more specialized kinds
of Systems may be understood in relation to each other.
2. Keywords
Autopoiesis, Reflexive Social Theory, Formal-Structural Systems, Virtual Reality,
Software Methodology, Self-Generating Component Systems, Worldmaking
3. Disciplines
General Systems Theory, Theory of Emergent Worlds, Software Engineering, Systems
Engineering, Ontology, Theoretical Sociology, Constructivism, Artificial Intelligence,
Artificial Life and Artificial Intersubjectivity.
Copyright 1994 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved. Pre-publication draft. Not for
distribution.
487
Draft#1 940415; Total pages: 658; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007; File
name: SCEW2V04.FM
4. INTRODUCTION
In part one an ontological theory was advanced on the basis of the work of
Johannson, Goodman, Rescher, Ford, Goertzel, Coutu, and others. In this part we
leave ontology behind and work instead to produce a systems theory or what might
more handily be called a worlds theory. We assume in this subsequent part the
background established in the first part. Our ultimate goal is to give a precise
definition to the minimal social machine within the context of general systems
theory. We will advance in that direction in stages starting from first principles (it
is allowed to say this because we do not mean ontological principles but instead
mean systems theoretic principles). We are building a network or rhizome of the
kind that Rescher or Deleuze approve and are not deluded concerning whether it is
possible to axiomize our systems theory. However, we will build this network
meticulously step by step so that we may fully comprehend the nature of the social
machine when we finally arrive at its door.
As was alluded to in the first part we will be applying the ways of worldmaking that
deal with order and composition / decomposition. In this we follow Kant seizing on
the strongest ways of worldmaking as the basis of our theory of worlds or domains
or meta-systems or systems or objects or primitives. In fact, we leave open which
ontological level we are building on here. Because the social generates worlds it
underlies all the other levels as well. But to understand the social we must delve
deep into the non-social. Thus we will leave the social for now in order to
rediscover it later. Instead we will delve into Johannson’s primary category
Spacetime. We have noticed an important point in the last part of this series of
essays. Between the projection of the fragmentation of Being and the splitting into
Li and Chi there is a layer that generally gets forgotten in the ruckus of projecting
Being and on its basis producing ideational glosses. That layer is called the layer of
embodiment and it contained more than just where and when. It also contained the
how and the dirt and the edge. These are the substance of embodiment or
implementation. Spacetime is not a pure container but contains means and also the
limitations of means by either its running into edges or its being fouled by dirt. The
how needs a place to act and that is spacetime. The how has to contend with
imperfection and that is in terms of limits and dirt. Embodiment is messy and
complicated. There is no getting around that. But embodiment has the interesting
488
feature of being beneath the projection of Being and the production of ideation. In
fact, we can see that Merleau-Ponty’s Wild Being gave us our first view of the
realm of embodiment but still thought in terms of ontology. Deleuze and Guattari
talk about desiring machines which also border on embodiments. But embodiments
are anti-theoretical and so not really captured by praxis or action guided by theory.
Embodiments are, in fact, opaque. Merleau-Ponty still saw them as partially
transparent. For Deleuze and Guattari we can talk about the higher intensities of the
body without organs (read Essence of Manifestation ala M. Henry). We might say
that Deleuze and Guattari operating within Wild Being still see embodiments as
translucent. But embodiment itself is purely opaque. Embodiment represents the
arena of practical reason and trial and error. It is understood on the basis of what
Polyani calls tacit knowledge. This realm of embodiment is the haven of the
Constructivists. It is the special province of hackers. It is the place where real
engineering happens. It is the intermediate zone, the no-mans-land, between the
splitting into Li and Chi and the projection of the kinds of Being as a basis of
ideation. We will concentrate on this layer in or ontological model looking deeply
at it in terms of ordering and composition / decomposition. And the question we
will ask is whether spacetime has an inner structure that grounds the social. Here
we are not helped by our analysis of Wild Being because we are below the layer at
which Wild Being appears. We are in fact looking to ground the social, or more
specifically the minimal social machines, directly in the structure of spacetime. If
we can achieve that we will have driven the social as deep as we can into the nature
of things. We see spacetime as the epitome of the non-social. It is that arena of the
container without the contained. And how can we have the social without the
contained -- the social things themselves. We can think of it as an exploration of
the situation without the situated. We are led to this by the fact that Goertzel has
already given us the mechanism by which non-continuous chaotic processes
operate. But we need to discern the threshold of complexity at which these chaotic
processes occur. To do this we must go down one level beneath the gloss of Being
and the mechanism which contains reference to all the different kinds of Being that
Goertzel posits.We must look into the inner structure of possibilities inscribed in
spacetime and understand them anew from a different viewpoint. Only then can we
produce a complete picture of the minimal social machine which operates according
to non-continuous chaotic processes of the self-generating component system. As
Goertzel would have it we could imagine those self-generating component systems
to occur at any level of complexity or abstraction. He has outlined a mechanism for
non-continuous chaotic process self-generation. But he has not situated the
minimal social machine in terms of understanding its own special level of
489
complexity. To understand that special level of complexity we will have to situate

it in terms of the levels of other specialized systems in general systems theory such
as the dissipative system and the autopoietic system. The social machine as a
reflexive autopoietic dissipative system and has a specific structure that is linked to
those more basic specialized systems and to all other general systems. Through this
analysis we will show how the social machine is the last possible kind of machine in
this series. There is no supra social machine. Once we understand this series of
machines we can then turn it upside down and realize that it is the social machine
that grounds all the others as restrictions on its most general structure.
With this work we usher in the era of computational sociology and make it possible
for Goertzel’s dream of Artificial Intersubjective Simulators to come nearer to
reality. We compare this work to that of Turing who defined the minimal
computational machine. Here we go beyond this definition to define the minimal
social machine which socializes instead of computes. Socializing is a more general
structure than computation. So when we say computational sociology we do not
mean society reduced to computation but instead the generalization of computation
to include socialization. The fact that the socialization of these minimal social
machines can occur within a computational environment is not as important as the
grounding of the social in the non-social -- spacetime. Never again will we argue
whether sociology is a science on the par with physics. Instead just as physics
claims to be rooted in spacetime by virtue of a myriad of virtual particles being
created and destroyed within the very fabric of spacetime, so to we will see that in
the very fabric of spacetime is the basic structures upon which the social is based.
But we must remember that when we speak of spacetime we do not mean the
idealization of spacetime but the arena of embodiment which includes how, edge,
and dirt. There is no pure spacetime. Only impure spacetime filled with debris and
with given limits. There is only the spacetime encountered by the means or how
and which thwarts perfect movement. And when we mention perfect movement we
are getting close to the nub of the matter. The social is the projection of perfect
movement within nitty-gritty of existential spacetime which balks at that perfection
and subverts it. But the possibility of perfect movement is inscribed into the very
structure of spacetime itself and this is the way in which the social appears within
midst of the anti-social. Ultimately the two are inextricably intertwined. It is the
purpose of this essay to understand the nature of that inextricableness.
490
5. ARCHITECTONIC
Derek A. Kelly in his article “Architecture as philosophical Paradigm” gives us a

good way to approach the building of out correlates (world or system or whatever)
theory. He explains Kant developed the concept of philosophical systems having an
architectonic and then looks to architecture for an approach to philosophy in
general. He then proposes four phases of the architectural process. We will attempt
to follow him in these phases in our development of our correlates theory. This is
because when we talk of embodiments architecture does give a good paradigm for
our philosophical and theoretical work.
5.1. The Brief
Here the problem is posed. Our problem as stated above is to define the minimal
social machine which will operate within the ontology developed in the previous
part of this study. Our goal is to determine the level of complexity on which non-
continuous chaotic processes operate which will explicitly and formally define the
social.
The reasons for undertaking this project are multifold.
• First we want to ground our social phenomenology in a more formal model of the social.
All phenomenological models suffer from imprecision and social phenomenology
more than any other kind. This is a hinderance to the development of an
ontological basis for social theorizing. Normally we just end by saying that there
is the problem of intersubjectivity as the philosophical locus for our sociological
theorizing. This is a great handicap to future progress in the discipline. Instead we
must show that there is a direct link between social phenomenology and
sociological theory. This requires us to be clear about our models of both. Clarity
is normally achieved by constructing a formal system. Here we will be a little
more sophisticated than to believe that we can just write equations and that is that.
Instead we will delve into the foundations of any possible formal system that
might attempt to capture the social. If we are to define the social it must be in
terms of the non-social. Therefore if we take spacetime as the primary category
which is by definition a social and more basic than any phenomena appearing in
spacetime and we can show that the social is directly manifest within spacetime
then we will have shown that no phenomena is more basic than the social so it
either has equal footing with other sciences or is more basic.
• Another strain that leads to this work is the whole concept of embodiment as the
intersection of multiple disciplines. Those of us working in engineering are
pleased with development of the constructivist agenda because it means that those
who construct for a living are finally being recognized as knowing something
valuable. In constructivism the hierarchy of the sciences is turned upside down.
Constructivism basically says that if you put things together sometimes you get
491
unexpected results that you could not have just thought up. Thus doing is valued
over theorizing perhaps for the first time in any academic discipline. But what this
really says is that pure theory and pure engineering should not be separated so
radically as they normally are in our society. In fact we know from experimental
science that engineering of the experiment is a very important aspect of scientific
work. What we really need to understand is that embodiment is the intersection of
many different disciplines as outlined in part one of this study. We need to explore
embodiments in order to better understand this intersection of disciplines. Our
work needs to be more than interdisciplinary. It needs to be meta-disciplinary in
that it recognizes that meta-disciplines such as general systems theory and
software engineering apply simultaneously to our problems. Also it needs to be
trans-disciplinary in that it recognizes the social basis of all disciplines and the
ontological basis of all our theorizing and practice. Domains intersect in worlds.
Our fundamental job is world building.
• Another strain of our brief comes from the need to connect software engineering,
artificial intelligence and life, and virtual reality or what Goertzel calls Artificial
Intersubjectivity. These disciplines all are developing as if the others did not exist.
All of these disciplines have or will in the future have significant social impact.
Thus it is necessary to attempt to understand them within a single comprehensive
view treating them as the disparate nodes of our network for cognitive
systematization. The paradigm set forth here attempts to connect these
intrinsically related disciplines together in ways that enhance our understanding of
all three.
• Finally, there is the basic question which all my theorizing seeks to answer: How do new
things come into existence? Artificial Intelligence is a new thing, and Artificial
Life is newer, Artificial Sociality is barely off the drawing board. These are new
fundamental ideas that have only recently arisen. The same is true for software
engineering. All these new things arise within our worldview. How do we
understand them in the context of the sociology of knowledge, philosophy of
science and technology, or related disciplines. As has been stated before by G.H.
Mead the social is tied intrinsically to the emergence of the genuinely new. By
understanding the inner structure of these new things and new disciplines we
advance our understanding of newness, especially if we use them to get a better
hold on what the social itself is. Here we use the new things to expose the nature
of the source of newness. This is a deep probing into the nature of existence.
5.2. The Design
Here we would like to outline the design of the minimal social machine. But we
cannot begin our design which might result in an artificial intersubjective simulator
imagined by Goertzel because we do not know at what threshold of complexity the
social lies. We have a process to apply and could apply it at many levels to produce
images of self-generating component systems. However, it does not tell us
anything about the inner structure of the social machine and their mutual
492
interaction. It merely gives us an outward picture of their interaction. So in order to

do a design we need to know the limits on our design from outside. This is why we
approach the a-social and attempt to elicit the inner structure of the a-social that
allows the social to exist within it. It turns out that this gives us very precisely our
design constraints for the social and identifies precisely the proper threshold of
complexity at which to run our simulation.
Thus in this paper we will not be concerned with design but with anti-design
specifying the limitations within which design must operate. Hopefully on that
basis we can proceed to design itself. But anti-design is not haphazard nor
ambiguous. In fact, we will attempt to be meticulous in our anti-design proceeding
stage by stage to lay down the foundations (as networks of necessary prerequisite
concepts) that will allow us to get a good view of what constrains our designs of all
possible social machines.
5.3. The Construction
Now that we know we are doing anti-design we can guess that we are also engaged
in deconstruction. De-construction has a bad name and rightly so. The
generalization of Derrida’s progrom by his followers leaves a bad taste in
everyone’s mouth that recognizes the nihilistic aspects of this philosophical and
critical fad. However, the original impetus of Derrida’s approach has some validity.
Unfortunately it has deteriorated to such an extent that to claim alliance with it is to
be sullied by association. Be that as it may, we can see deconstruction as a kind of
analysis or decomposition. We promised to apply Kant’s ways of worldmaking to
our problem in this part of the study. Decomposition and order go hand in hand and
assume that things easily break apart into components, such as the self-generating
component system implicitly assumes. And we also assume that these components
are ordered. So here we want to explore their component like nature and inherent
order. Now deconstruction just adds to that the effects of the essence of
manifestation or unconscious which makes it so any author produces distortions
that can be analyzed along with the system of their thought to expose the
contradictions within any author’s thought. Deconstruction is a power play that
focuses on the idiosyncracies of the other and disintegrates the subject behind the
authorship seeing instead the differing and deferring of the text from itself. Now
since we following Deleuze and Guattari, not Derrida, never believed in the
integrity of the subject this is no great revelation. So it is ultimately not interesting
because it seeks to prove something we assume. But more importantly we are
studying in this section things like mathematics, logic, and the nature of spacetime
493
which are not “subjective” in the same sense as works of philosophy or novels. We
are studying the most fundamental intersubjective phenomena -- the projection of
spacetime and its inner structure. So we are not concerned with the subject and its
fragmentation but only with the unity of the intersubjective in its strongest form.
This means that for us the distortions of texts by the fragmentation of the subject
translates into the opactiy of the intersubjective to the subject. So when we look at
spacetime which every ontologist takes as a primary category and attempt to
decompose it and discover its order we realize that our view is distorted from the
beginning. Kant expressed this by saying that we apply a schema to space and time
(he thought they were absolute and separate) which makes it into what we
experience and that we really have no idea what space or time are themselves.
However, despite this we have good luck modeling spacetime intersubjectiviely in
ways that allow us to fly to planets of our solar system and beam back pictures or
walk on the moon and return. So the whole problem of deconstruction is
transformed in the context of social phenomenology. The problem becomes to
discover what allows us to be connected to each other in spite of now really seeing
how that connection works. We cannot introspect into each others minds (unless
you accept ESP) yet we can describe the components of spacetime and its ordering
in such a way to coordinate our efforts to accomplish very sophisticated maneuvers
in spacetime. Of course this is known as the Cartesian coordinate system and the
definition of perspective on that coordinate system that allows this to happen.
Fancy math is used to describe trajectories and velocities and accelerations. But all
of the mathematical apparatus merely exploits properties we are able to successfully
project on spacetime even though we do not know ultimately what it really is like.
The differing and deferring comes between the multiple subjects and their grasp of
the true nature of spacetime. Spacetime is the ultimate empty text which we see
distortions in that show the fragmentation of the intersubjective cohort. Looking
deeper we can say that spacetime is a palimpsest on which there are multiple grams
written overlaying and obscuring each other. The traces are like the indentions in a
writing pad which we shade to read what was written there. When we shade we call
attention to the empty space of the pad. Wild Being looks at that empty space
instead of the indentions made by the grams. That empty space as physics posits it
is alive with the creation and destruction of particles and anti-particles. It is a
clearing within in which reversibilities appear. It is still translucent. But if you just
take all the reversibilities, the possible interferences that constitute the substrate
itself, without the clearing that separates them, then you get the pure opacity of
embodiment. Wild Being still sees some distance or spacing that makes the field
between the grams. Beneath the layer of projecting ontology this clearing vanishes
494
and spacetime becomes a pure noumena. At that point the differing and deferring
of the subjects from each other with regard to their individual understandings of
spacetime cannot be distinguished from the differing and deferring of the empty
holder of the text of spacetime itself.
We must actually admit that anti-design of the social machine cannot be

distinguished from the deconstruction of our intersubjective view of spacetime.
The constraints on the social machine appearing within spacetime are the same as
the unknowableness of spacetime as a social construct. This result makes us wary
because we find ourselves living though the lifeworld within spacetime that others
are also living within. None of us really knows what it is but we have very
sophisticated ways of communicating about it which makes all our most basic
social operations possible as well as many sophisticated social maneuvers such as
going to the moon together and returning. It determines the nature of our social
interaction but we are projecting it because we do not really know what it is. This is
the kind of interaction that Goertzel calls self-generating. But the thing that is self
generating here is the entire social cohort projecting the field of its own social
relations that in turn are the conditions for having social relations. Spacetime
envelops the social but from another point of view the social envelops spacetime
because its intrinsic properties must be projected on whatever is there as noumena
in order for the coordination within space to occur. That coordination in spacetime
produces a social space that is directly experienced as part of and a foundation for
the lifeworld. Social spacetime is abstracted into physical spacetime which is then
projected as an objective reality. It is that objective reality and the aspects of it we
do not experience, that remain theoretical which talk about the noumena of
spacetime but never completely capture it. The noumena of spacetime may be
equated with the intersubjective itself which is likewise not transparent to us. When
we do this we suddenly understand that the nature of social space being primary
may not be so far fetched. Since we cannot know objective space fully it is possible
that the part we do not know is exactly the part that makes it possible for space to be
social in nature and support individual subjectivities separated from each other and
interacting in spacetime. This brings us back to the substantiation of Bell’s
theorem. Particles that were once together can effect each other across spacetime,
at a distance with immediate effects. Here we return to Johannson’s idea that
intentionality always operates at a distance. This operation at a distance is one way
of seeing the social. But instead of positing it as some mysterious force we can
instead say that spacetime is intrinsically social so that operations at a distance are
really an aspect of spacetime itself in its social aspect. Thus two particles that were
495
once together have a bond across the social aspect of spacetime just as subjects that
operate at a distance from each other in the social field and produce nested
intentional structures. This establishes that everything from particles to reflexive
autopoietic systems can participate in this social aspect of spacetime in order to
establish immediate connections across spacetime which are synchronized in spite
of communication delays. Synchronization relies on backward processing which
for particles are Feynaman diagrams where particles move backward in time and for
people are the backward processing of memories in order to project intentions. The
social nature of spacetime from an intersubjective viewpoint is an obscure aspect of
existence which deserves explication within the framework of social
phenomenology. But to do this we must dive into spacetime itself and see what its
nature is as intersubjectively constructed.
5.4. The Obduction
We would like to design and construct social machines. But we must first do anti-
design and deconstruction in order to understand the constraints under which our
design would have to operate and to understand the opacity of embodiment in
spacetime itself. And the ability to undertake such a design is the obduction of our
study. Obduction means to Kelly the environment that the building creates. Here
we are not discussion the building of inanimate objects to house living intelligent
social beings but the design and construction of the social being themselves in their
minimal manifestation as embodied in spacetime. So the environment that our
study should create is the ambiance in which Artificial Intersubjectivity might be
pursued with rigor and zeal. But once social machines are designed using non-
continuous chaotic processes and at the correct threshold of complexity then they
will create their own environment which will be a designated virtual reality that we
should be able to study and interact with. Thus the obduction of anti-design and
deconstruction will be design and construction of minimal societies. The obduction
of minimal virtual societies will be virtual worlds produced as shared belief systems
emanating from minimal virtual societies. Because of this ultimate obduction we
can characterize our process as world design for the minimal virtual societies must
produce minimal virtual worlds. The study of these minimal virtual worlds must be
essential to a general theory of worlds and any understanding of baroque virtual
realities that may be constructed by humans to interact with each other and their
artificially intelligent living social creatures which inhabit different ecological
niches in cyberspace.
The recognition by Kelly of the necessity to explore the environs of a theoretical or
496
philosophical system and see how it effects us as we dwell within it is very

significant. It reaches out to the phenomena of embodiment which is actualized in
the obduction. Dwelling in the world means being embodied within the world. It is
more basic than being-in-the-world which projects Being (unified or fragmented) as
a gloss across the surface of things. Dwelling does not project but lives with the
opacity of self and things, encounters limits and imperfections in every action, and
finds ways to get around, over, through the obstacles or discovers the meaning of
being blocked at every turn which can be fated as well. We explore dwelling by
first constructing a formal gloss as a grid to take our bearings by and then
understanding that grid in new ways to illuminate the dark landscape of
embodiment below the grid. Our presentation of the grid of order and
decomposable parts will be continually haunted by the actuality of embodiment and
occurrence. Through that haunting we will slowly form a picture of the social
nature of embodiment through our developing understanding of the social nature of
spacetime.
6. A POINT OF DEPARTURE
We are going to take a journey through seven stages in the development of our
overview of systems theory or worlds theory as it relates to dissipative autopoietic
reflexive systems. This theory is a completely different way of looking at old
territory so we are going to begin by asking the reader to suspend disbelief until the
entire story is told. Bracketing is a good old phenomenological tool we can invoke
right now to allow the reader to grasp this new way of seeing things which might be
thought of as a paradigm shift. Certainly we are going to cover some familiar topics
but with a new twist that will make them seem strange to us and make us wonder if
we ever really understood them before. But this is a whole narrative which can only
really be grasped once the whole story is told and all seven stages have been
explained. Then once the reader has seen the entire vista it is left to them to decide
how to evaluate our efforts. But the reader who stops at every point and criticizes
without having gotten the whole picture will ultimately not be in contact with the
full theory enunciated here. The implicit warning is that this in Kuhn’s terms is
abnormal science not normal science. If you approach this as normal science you
will be missing the whole point. If you suspend disbelief for a while and try to
imagine your self in this world then you will get more out of the presentation which
cannot be gotten in any other way.
497
6.1. Perice’s Categories
Charles Sanders Peirce is the source of Pragmatism and he had a theory which we
will outline as part of our departure on our journey. The categories of Peirce are
conveniently named First, Second, and Third. They are not categories in the sense
of Johannson or Kant or Aristotle nor in the sense of mathematical category theory.
They are in fact ways of looking at the complexity of things. Firsts are isolated
instances of something. Seconds are relations among any pair of isolated instances.
Thirds are derivative relations which bear the significance of the relation. Peirce
was a logician, in fact he invented existential quantifiers and thus advanced logic in
a fundamental way. But beyond logic he liked to explore the relation of logic to the
world and thus coined the term pragmatism. Pragmatism basically says that
scientific method is the basic way that humans relate to everything in the world.
Peirce sees science as intimately related to logic as the application of deduction,
induction, and abduction. Abduction is his own invention and comes from an
analysis of the syllogism. Abduction is basically the means of logically formulating
hypotheses. It is equivalent to all intents and purposes to Husserl’s essence
perception. Now logic is about forming relations and reasoning about relations
between things using what is called first order predicate calculus. But in order to
form relations the relata must preexist and it is the work of formal ontology to
provide those existents to be related and manipulated. These existents are Firsts.
But beyond logical manipulations (Seconds) it is necessary to make sense of what
we see related. Thus thirds supply us with the significance of the relations as a level
on top our logical manipulations. Peirce attempts to prove that these three are the
only levels that can occur. This is called the Peircian reduction thesis. All higher
order relations can be reduced to either Firsts, Seconds, or Thirds. Many logicians
wish to reduce everything to the dyadic relations that are manipulated by logic.
They do not recognize the importance of the significance of these relations but
merely rely upon the mechanical manipulations and proofs that can be produced
using logic. Thus Peirce must also assert that Thirds cannot be reduced to dyadic
relations. He stands his ground on the non-reducibility of thirds and the reducibility
of all higher relations to seconds or thirds.
We will not delve deeper into Peirce’s theory than this but suffice it to say that he
develops a new science of meanings called semiotics that is parallel the semiotics
posited by Ferdinand Sussaire. It is a novel theory that in many ways seeks to
develop the insights of Hegel. Hegel develops the concept of synthesis of
contraries as the basis of his logic. Pierces semiotics makes the production of
498
synthesis as a third arising out of the interaction of a dyad into a complete working
theory and not just an ontological category system. Hegel of course got his idea for
the dialectical categories from Kant who posited dialectical relations between the
categories in his category table. Hegel seized upon this and made his whole
philosophy an emanation from logic through dialectics. After all dialectics is
merely an explosion of the ability to draw conclusions in the syllogism. Through
the process of drawing conclusions one can induct or deduct. If one starts with the
most general category and begins deducting one gets the idealist categorical
hierarchy. If one starts with phenomena and begins inducting one gets the
successive higher levels of the phenomenal hierarchy. The combination of the two
is called absolute reason. That is reason embodied within the phenomena and
inextricably interlinked and embedded with it -- noesis completely enmeshed with
noema. Peirce merely takes this one step further and says that we do not need the
hierarchies but can discover the absolute reason in the phenomena themselves
through the scientific method. All we need is a means of explaining the meaning of
the of our inductions and deductions and relating them to the world. Abduction
relates them to the world and Thirds as a by-product gives them significance that
makes them meaningful to us. Peirce by this reading is working in direct descent
from the program set in motion by Hegel that makes us recognize the importance of
emergent levels and their relation to our reasoning. As a pragmatist Peirce is more
concerned with embodiments than Hegel the idealist. Pragmatism is in fact
scientific idealism which says that science is the basic way we relate to the world
and that it is capable of understanding everything. It was of course formulated in a
day where that appeared to be the case. Pragmatism is a middle ground between
dialectical idealism and dialectical materialism. It sees the praxis of science not the
praxis of work or theorizing as the basic way or humans to relate to the world.
Science contains both theorizing and the work of experimentation together in a
working whole that allows us to make seemingly unlimited progress. Pragmatism
turned out to be the great American dead end of philosophy. If philosophy is
nothing other than science and technological know how then why do we need
philosophy. We are still trying to recover from that line of reasoning. Mean while
Europeans kept on thinking and the result was Analytic and Continental schools of
philosophy. The former degenerated into word games and the latter hit the problem
of intersubjectivity. We take our basic problematic from continental philosophies
impasse combining it with the insights of little known pragmatist philosopher
G.H.Mead who realized that science was essentially social as was work and
theorizing. He was an almost lone crusader against the predominance of
behaviorism which psychology had degenerated into without the guide of
499
philosophy. He developed the sociological perspective called symbolic

interactionism and showed how the social was an irreducible phenomenon over and
above individual behavior. Symbolic Interactionism may be seen as a latter day
development related to Perice’s semiotics which had forgotten those roots.
Symbolic interactionism tells us that we can see the interactions between social
beings in terms of the transformation, transduction, and transference of symbols.
Symbolic Interactionism will form a fundamental basis for the work we are doing in
this study.
6.2. Fuller’s Synergetics
We are going to introduce a fundamental change to the Categories of Peirce based

on the work of Buckminster Fuller. We will posit that Peirce was wrong about
Thirds being the highest meta-level phenomenon. Instead we will say that there is
one higher level called Fourths. And we will basically take the same stand that
Peirce did with respect to Thirds which is that there is no higher level and that all
higher relations may be reduced to fourths or some lower kind of relation. A Fourth
is a true synthesis. Thirds that occur as significances stemming from relations are
partial syntheses. Fourth combine these partial syntheses to produce a new unity
that integrates and creates a synergetic unity of those partial syntheses. A fourth is
an example of a new thing which arises from but goes beyond the information
given. Thirds never actually go beyond the information given but merely provide
tangential knowledge. The fourth manifests at least a partial wisdom. Thus we
have the hierarchy:
Table 13:
First Data
Second Information
Third Knowledge
Fourth Wisdom
When we say wisdom here we mean it in the most mundane sense as a synthesis of
experience and knowledge which rises above both. But what we really want to
emphasize is the quality of synergy that all Thirds lack but which is a clear
phenomena in any design work. Synergy is the reuse of the same part for multiple
functions. A synergetic system has many parts with multiple functions operating
together in harmony. That harmony following Chang can be Logical, Interactive,
Mutually Supportive or Interpenetrating. Systems of significance lack synergy.
500
Each significance is an independent relevance or meaning with no necessary

connection to anything else. B. Fuller attempted in his two volume magnum opus
Synergetics volumes I & II to define and give many examples of synergy. Synergy
makes us look at the architectonic of our conceptual systems and discern the correct
thresholds of complexity at which a theory of a given phenomena should be poised.
This is what leads us to look at the correct level of conceptual complexity to place
each of our specialized systems theories that make up our theory of worlds. Each
phenomenon has its specific level of complexity which we must match with our
conceptual complexity in order to produce a good representation. It is synergy that
allows us to appreciate the nature of different thresholds of complexity in relation to
their theoretical expressiveness. It is synergy that allows us to grasp theoretical and
phenomenal wholes. Thus the synergy is the interface between the phenomenal and
ontological hierarchies and the adequation between noema and noesis.
How can there be another level beyond synergy? What is there beyond a whole?
Only fragmentation exists beyond the whole which is necessary to construct a
perhaps more comprehensive whole. Synergy is the pivot between composition and
decomposition. Synergy is what allows us to decompose intelligently cutting as
Plato says at the joints like a good butcher. Synergy allows us to compose in such a
way to realize wholes greater than the sum of their parts. Thus synergy is the key to
the application of the synthesis and analysis (or composition and decomposition)
way of world making. Our notion of system as presented by Rescher and based on
our knowledge of organisms is a an abstract picture of synergy. Higher ontological
level correlates are even more synergetic than that. Meta-systems, like operating
systems, are combinations of interworking systems which may display any degree
of harmony. Domains are interworking meta-systems and Worlds are interworking
domains. At each level the amount of necessary synergy increases at least by an
order of magnitude.
So we add to Peirce’s meta-logical categories on further one which introduces

something stronger than partial synthesis but is instead unitary synthesis into a
whole. We can characterize Hegel as opening up the realm of logical synthesis as a
possibility and Peirce filling that realm with a praxis that realizes continuous partial
synthesis. But it was B. Fuller that fully actualize unitary synthesis by pointing our
that it is more than merely raising ourselves to a new ontological level and more
than deriving significance at the new level for phenomena at the lower level.
Instead it is the realization of the unity of the new level in relation to the old level.
Koestler proposes parts as holons or wholes when viewed from the top and parts
501
when viewed from the bottom. But it is George Leonard that proposes the term
holoid for the holographic phenomena where the part contains a partial reflection of
the whole so that every interpenetrating part has a model of the hole and its place
within the whole. At the highest level of harmony the synthesized whole is a holoid
rather than just a holoarchy. Goertzel speaks of his dual hierarchy composed of
heterarchy and hierarchy. That dual taken as overlapping mapping must be a
holarchy and that holarchy must ultimately approach being holoidal.
Fuller’s model of synergy in his two volume magnum opus was the Platonic solids
in three space. He showed many interesting relations between these platonic solids
(tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron) and other regular
figures. He considers higher dimensions in as much as they are projected on or
embedded in threespace as motions or degrees of freedom. However, the best
example of synergy is the structure of higher dimensional platonic solids. For
instance, the simplest regular solid in four space is the pentahedron. It is composed
of five points, ten lines, ten triangular surfaces, and five tetrahedrons. It is
represented by a lattice 1-5-10-10-5-1 and appears as all minimal higher
dimensional figures as layers in the triangle of Pascal which by the way was
discovered by the Chinese long before Pascal. We see synergy at work in this
figure because the ten triangles would normally need 30 lines but it reuses the ten
lines of the figure to produce ten triangles. Likewise the five tetrahedrons
embedded in the pentahedron would normally need twenty triangles to make their
sides but the sides are reused so ten triangles do the trick. This reuse of the
components of the figure itself to produce different aspects of the same figure is a
excellent example of synergy which all higher dimensional polytopes display. It is
this folding together and reuse of elements which play multiple roles within the
whole is an excellent example of synergy. In fact, though Fuller confined himself
to three dimensional figures for the most part it is really higher dimensional figures
that exemplify synergy the best. And we will be exploring in this essay many
aspects of higher dimensional synergy. But the main point we wish to make is that
synergy is something that Thirds alone on in combination with Firsts and Seconds
cannot produce. Synergy is an emergent quality which may appear at any level in
the ontological hierarchy along with Firsts, Seconds, and Thirds. It is important to
separate these Peircian categories from each other and realize their distinctness. We
will not venture a proof here of fourths but appeal to intuition. At each ontological
level it is the essence that has the nature of the Fourth. Though Peirce discovered
abduction it is not identical to the essence itself. Abduction and the essence are
complementary phenomena. Abduction is tied to the syllogism and simulates the
502
hypothesis in the confines of Logic. The essence is tied to the description of the
object that is reasoned about and is an intuition of kindness. So what we have are
parallel aspects in noesis and neoma. The essence gives insight to the noesis into
the kindness of the noema. The abduction or hypothesis gives foresight to the
noema into the knowledge of the noesis. Which is to say that it is through the
hypothesis that we step outside what is given to project what might be. We project
onto the noema and that turns into knowledge which is apprehended through noesis.
The parallel construction of the sentence about abduction stretches our normal use
of language. But we see thought such a obdurant construction the different roles
that abduction and essence intuition play even though they are basically the same
phenomena seen from the side of noesis or noema. And so we see that abduction
and essence perception are what give us knowledge of synergy. Kinds are
synergistically coherent and so are our theories based on abduction. Abduction and
essence perception are our windows on synergy within the world and within our
heads. But we know that really synergy in both are the same because noesis and
noema are just two sides of the same coin. Thus we have a way to understand
synergy that takes us beyond thirds. Thirds do not need a special intuition because
they arise from the production as significance from the production of relations
which occur though induction or deduction. Thirds are a side-effect of our relation
building and relation manipulation. It is the action of building relations produces
this side effect. With synergy we go beyond the network of relations as it is
constructed and see the harmony within those relations. That harmony appears as
kindness and it leads us to make abductions which go beyond the information given
to express the whole gestalt.
We can talk about the Piercian-Fullerian categories in terms of our basic approaches
to social science that involve distancing. First are pure distancing. They view
whatever it is under scrutiny as a plenum of unrelated bits of content of one kind or
another, isolated primitives, objects or systems etc. So for phenomenology it is
isolated bits of hyle or the content of consciousness; for hermeneutics it is the
isolated elements of the text to be interpreted; for structuralism it is isolated
lacunae, discontinuities, gaps etc.; for dialectics it is the isolated theses or parts.
Seconds appear as pure relations projected upon the Firsts. Here we see not pure
distancing but pure relation as the web of connections between all ontic components
which are seen as relata. For phenomenology this is the morphe of intentionality
relating everything in consciousness though the dictum that consciousness is
“consciousness of something”. For hermeneutics it is diacritical meaning which is
the significance of everything in relation to everything else posited by Sussaire. For
503
structuralism it is the transformation that connects two seemingly different forms on

either side of a lacunae or gap. For dialectics it is the whole that encompasses the
part. In each case pure distance is overcome by the projection of some unifying
substrate. Pure distance of Firsts is counterpoised with the pure unity or
inseparability Seconds which is the basis for seeing relations. So in Husserl we see
him projecting the intentional morphe on the hyle to produce noesis and noema. In
hermeneutics it is the projection of significance on texts that produce
interpretations. In structuralism it is the projection of functional transformations on
discontinuities that produce structural relations. In dialectics it is the projection of
wholes on parts that produces partial synthesis. In each case the dialectically thing
that arises out of the coming together of the pure distance with unity is the third:
noesis/noema, interpretations, structural relations, and partial synthesis. These are
all side-effects of the collision of pure difference with pure identity. But these side
effects do not actually describe the phenomena itself completely. This is why
essence perception and abduction are necessary that allow us to see kindness and
build knowledge. Beyond the mechanisms of induction and deduction as they
apply to each of the approaches to social science there is direct intuition of the inner
coherence of natural complexes. This allows us to see the phenomena themselves
through our ideational structures projected upon them. Thus in the case of
phenomenology there is essence perception which is the perfect balance of noesis
and noema that allows us to see kindness. If we turn this around and consider
science it is this balance that allows our hypotheses to be true about the physical
world and adequation between our conceptual structures and natural phenomena
occurs. In the case of hermeneutics we actually see meaning through the
hermeneutic circle (spiral really) or rather in spite of it. When we see meaning we
grasp it directly from out of the center of the spiral which is in fact empty. In
structuralism we see that the discontinuities that we are mapping across have a life
of their own and we grasp their actuality. In the case of dialectics we see true
synthesis through all the partial syntheses -- which is to say we can see the holoidal
nature of things through the picture of the holons. In every case there is a reaching
beyond the information given to produce either a picture of the nature of the thing,
or a meaning, or a structural coherence, or a genuine synthesis. This is synergy and
each of our approaches to social science changes its nature as we approach the
expression of harmony. Now heuristic research takes the exact opposite tact. It
starts with harmony through direct communion with the object of investigation.
Heuristic research works out from the empty center instead of inward. Heuristic
research assumes that there is a deep connection between what ever phenomena one
is investigating and one’s self and starts building from there rather than assuming
504
difference between the self and the phenomena. Starting from the sameness of self
and phenomena Heuristic Research can base itself on meanings, on direct
apprehension of the phenomena, on direct intuition of structural coherence, and
upon direct understanding of the inner coherence of the holoid. It uses the tools of
distance to explicate these samenesses it directly experiences. It starts from
gatheredness and adds in separation instead of starting from separation and adding
in gatheredness. As such Heuristic Research experiences the world completely
different from the distancing approaches of social science. Social science which
want above all to be considered a science no matter what that costs in the end
always appears as empty. Heuristic Research is in the end always full because it
seeks to fulfill the self by immersion in the phenomena of study using the resources
of the self to understand the phenomena. And since that self is socially constructed
it never becomes solipsistic like the subjects who pursue social science by
beginning with distancing. Heuristic Research takes every thing personally but
keeps going till it goes deep enough to reaches through the subjective unconscious
to the collective unconscious so its results are intersubjectively valid.
So Heuristic Research starts with synthesis and allows side effect meanings to
emerge from them so that Fourths naturally devolve into Thirds. And out of thirds
one sees the relations between everything which are the Seconds and finally one
sees what is related that are the Firsts. Heuristic research is an idealism that sees
ontological levels emanating from the pluriverse. The social science approaches
see the phenomenal layers building on each other starting from the utmost physical
primitives and building up toward the social. Social since never quite arrives at the
social from its starting point in the physical, there is always something missing.
Heuristic Research starting from the Pluirverse does not quite arrive at the ultimate
physical primitive, there is always the possibility of something more primitive.
6.3. Mathematical Categories
Now we will not dwell upon this but it is necessary to introduce another kind of
category theory developed in mathematics. It is our means of seeing pure relations.
It is the inverse of set theory. Sets contain elements that are related to elements in
other sets. Category contains only arrows that connect the elements without the
elements themselves being necessary any longer. Thus we can see that
mathematical category theory give us a picture of pure relation or Seconds.
Mathematical category theory proves it is possible to construct a purely noetic
theory of relations that discards the noematic elements with the relations are
grounded in. The purpose of mathematical category theory is to allow us to show
505
that one set of relations are equal to some other set of relations. And ultimately this
is meant to show that sets of relations in different categories are identical. Thus
some theorems proved in group theory may be structurally the same as other
theorems proved in vector spaces or some other kind of mathematical category. We
will use this theory of categories in a very loose way to be able to manipulate
opposites and see how two things have the same but opposite structure. This is
achieved in category theory by the reversal of arrows. When ever anything is
proved in category theory if the arrows of the proof are reversed then one gets the
dual proof. We will often reason about things using an informal notion of the
production of the dual proof by reversal of arrows. Generally we will note that
important structures are duals of each other. For instance, in geometry the
icosahedron and dodecahedron are duals as are the cube and octahedron. The
tetrahedron is its own self-dual. The reversal comes by applying the hierarchy
point, line, face, solid starting at either end of the lattices that correspond to these
polytopes. For instance, the octahedron and cube have the lattice 1-8-12-6-1. The
cube has eight points and the octahedron has eight sides. The cube has six sides and
the octahedron has six points. This reversal is a simple example of the kind of
duality that occurs from reversing arrows to produce a dual. Category theory was
created because it is more elegant than set theory needing no difference between
element and set and no distinction between different elements in different sets at
either end of mappings. Category theory has only meta-sets of pure relations. The
ontic aspect of the endpoints of the arrows is forgotten. This allows mathematics to
detach itself from any consideration of ontology because it no longer needs to
consider the reality of the things being manipulated and systematized. Category
theory allows mathematics to pretend to be purely noetic. For category theory its
objects are the mathematical categories it is producing meta-relations between.
Those categories are pure syntheses that are fourths. Category theory skips the
level of meaning and it disengages from the ontic level of arrow endpoint correlates.
It produces a picture of the relations between syntheses like the category group
theory or the category topoi. Categories themselves have their opposites so set has
anti-set. Normally these opposites collapse together as really being images of the
same thing. However, it is intriguing to think of what the opposite of category
theory might be like. It would obviously have only ontic elements with no relations
between them and it would have significances without any pure synthesis. But is
that not exactly the kind of picture Johannson painted for us of vectors. Vectors
have direction and magnitude. The magnitude is the ontic base to which is added a
side-effect which can only be conceived based on calculus which makes them pure
positions in spacetime. Thus we could say that there really is a dual to category
506
theory and that is the kind of mathematics used by physics to understand natural
phenomena in terms of acceleration and force. So if we were to put category theory
together with some form of vector mathematics we would get a complete picture of
any one ontological or phenomenal layer in terms of all four Peircian-Fullerian
categories. And so it is that vectors are a category among other categories so
category theory envelops vector mathematics. But on the other hand category
theory itself is based on arrows in sets or bundles which are like the vectors in that
the arrow expresses direction and the bundle expresses magnitude. We get
magnitude by counting identity operations within any given bundle. So we can see
that in some ways category theory fundamental elements can be seen as similar
things to vectors. Thus there is a duality between vector arithmetic and category
theory in some strange way which allows us to see how Johannson’s vector
arithmetic fits into a grander scheme that sees not just ontic elements and
directionality but also categorical synthesis and pure relation. Taking these together
it is possible to construct a complete picture that encompasses all four levels of the
Peircian-Fullerian hierarchy.
6.4. Machines and Spacetime
Now another element we need to discuss as part of the preliminaries is our

conception of the machine and our conception of spacetime. We will be using as
our starting point for considering minimal social machines a conception of a
machine developed by Arbib and Manes under the rubric of “Machines in a
Category.1” In this article they attempt to subsume sequential (state) machines,
linear (control) machines, stochastic (state) machines, and tree automata in to a
single “Machine category” of the mathematical category theory type. We will not
dwell upon this formalism except to when it is necessary to ground our discussion
in a specific theory of machines. But this article contains a crucial point for us.
This is the realization by Arbib and Manes that it was possible to unify all these
different representations of the category Machine by changing their conception of
category theory arrows into processes.
We first need a crucial change in viewpoint which is one of the major contributions
of this paper: We think of the input not as the set Xo but as the process (functor) -
xXo: C -> C which transforms the state set Q into the set Q x Xo upon which the
dynamics d acts. We reserve the symbol X for the entire “process” q -> x Xo,
explaining the zero subscript appearing in section 1. This viewpoint yields the
following immediate generalization.
1.M.A. Arbib & E.G. Manes “Machines in a Category: An Expository Introduction” SIAM Review Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1974,
pages 163-292
507
Definition. A process in an arbitrary category K is a functor X: K -> K.

Dyn(X) denotes the category of X-dynamics whose objects are pairs (Q, δ), with Q
an object of K and δ:QX -> Qa morphism in K (note that for each Q there many be
many d’s) and whose morphisms (Q,δ) -f> (Q’, δ’) are X-dynamorphisms, being K-
morphisms Q -f> Q’ rendering
δ
QX 2 Q
fX 1 3 f
δ’
Q’X 4 Q’
commutative (so that an f:Q -> Q’ may be a dynamorphism (Q, δ1) -> (Q’, δ’1) and
yet not be a dynamorphism (Q, δ2) -> (Q’, δ’2).
Henceforth we shall only consider processes that share with -xXo the property that
there exist free dynamics.
Now building on Goertzel’s insight concerning self-generating systems this

definition of a machine will serve us well. Here a process on any Category is a
functor that maps the category into itself. This is like having a class be a member of
itself which is allowed in hypersets. Only here the emphasis is on the functor and
not on the self-generative processes that appear in Goertzel’s model at each
instance. Here processes are the functors between instants of category that map that
category into itself. What we see is that this is the dual of Goertzel’s model which
is vectorial that occurs when category is applied instead. Here the gap between
instants is turned into the relation of a category to itself.
Definition. A machine in the category K is a 7-tuple
M= (X, Q, δ, I, τ, Y, β),
where X is an input process
(Q,δ) element Dyn(X)- we call Q the state object,
I is an object of K, the initial state object,
I -τ> Q is a K-morphism called the initial state,
Y is an object of K, the output object,
Q -β> Y is the output map.
This definition is honed to the conception of processes as functors in which

categories are mapped into themselves. There are many different dynamics that are
508
based on the input X which determine the state of the machine. Every machine has
its initial state defined either deterministically or stochastically. I is that initial
state. The initial state maps into the stateset Q as the identity mapping. After the
initial state then all the behavior of the machine is based on the mapping between
the stateset Q and the output objects Y in combination with the dynamism that takes
Q back into itself at the next instant.
We will not dwell upon this formalism. The major reason for introducing it was to
show that category theory was the opposite of the vector conceptualization and that
this category of machines is the opposite in some sense to Goertzel’s model. In
Goertzel’s model processes are in the moment and separated from the processes that
exist in the next moment. In the categorical formulation of Arbib and Manes the
process is exactly what takes you across the gap between instants and that is what
allows them to think them as functors from a category onto itself. Notice they are
functors and not the arrows within a category that describe its internal structure.
Arbib and Manes have come up with the brilliant notion that functors can act back
upon the same category not just connect categories with other different categories.
This self action of categories on themselves via functors is what is equivalent but
dual to the self-generation that Goertzel posits where a process is an element which
generates other elements acting together with other elements in order to produce via
the filter (a conspiracy of all against all) the processes that will exist in the next
instant. Processes are like magnitudes with directionality toward the next instant
and acting in communion with other elemental processes. But we can consider the
whole as a category acting back on itself instead. It takes the set of self generating
processes that exist as the input set X. There is some initial set of self-generating
components to start with called I. There is an initial kickstart where the initial state
is mapped into the set of states connected to inputs. Given the internal states of the
self-generating processes Q plus the actual set of self-generating processes present I
we are given new internal states Q’ and the actual existent set Y. What you will
notice about this formulation is that the internal states of the self-generating
processes is related to their actual occurrence in each instance. Inputs and Outputs
are the occurrences and changes of state refer to their internal state. These two
interact to allow them to self-generate as a community. That communal SELF-
generation can be seen from the outside as the category of the self-generating
component system acting on itself via a functor. This opposite view allows us to
see the social nature of the self-generating component system better. It allows us to
see also the gap between instants as a continuity of the category acting back on
itself which is of course a model of self-grounding transcendence.
509
Now we want to see this model in the context of spacetime because we are studying
social machines in spacetime not in some disembodied abstract state. I order to get
a view of these self-generating component systems as machines acting on
themselves via functors we will require a view of machines in space. This is
supplied by Y. Feldman and E. Shapiro in their article “Spatial Machines: A more
realistic approach to parallel computation.1” This is an interesting text that gives us
a view of the relation between the sequential and parallel processing that Goertzel
talks about as the relation between consciousness and the unconscious parallelism
of the brain. We speak of dark matter of the universe when we know it must be
there but does not give off light so we can see it. Similarly the parallel processing
of the brain we know is there because of brain structure but since we only see
limited parallelism in consciousness we know something big and important is
missing and that we are really only seeing the tip of the iceberg of what is really
going on. Feldman and Shapiro want to produce a realistic model of computation
based on the paradigm of cellular automata. They develop the concept of spatial
machines which is a finite set of moving computational machines in a three-
dimensional cellular space. They show that moving computational machines are
intrinsically parallel where as stationary computational machines are intrinsically
sequential. Each machine can move to empty cells or emit and receive flying bits
that move through empty cells between movable machines. Thus they work out a
scheme where memory is actually held in space and a turing machine is actually
two computational machines working together. One is sending and receiving
different patterns of bits changing them by writing new sequences of flying bits as
they go by while the partner computational machine merely reflects the bits sent by
its partner. Thus one partner is active and the other is passive. The tape is increased
in memory capacity by moving the two machines further apart.
Now what is good about this theory from our point of view is that it explains the
relation between motion and computation. Moving computational machines are
inherently parallel whereas static ones are inherently sequential. This also allows us
a direct connection between our machines and directionality so we can follow
Johannson to construct computational vectors. Computational machines have
intentionality associated with their motion because that motion can also have
velocity and acceleration as well as acceleration of acceleration. Thus the
computational machine gets a direct connection to the meta-levels that end in the
unthinkable. Also we see in this model the means for machines to talk to each other
1.Comm. of ACM Oct 92 v35 n10 p60(14)
510
which does not appear in Goertzel’s model. Here there are flying bits bounded by
the speed of light and so the cellular computational space is relativistic. If we add
to their model two active nodes then we begin to see how machines can become
social participating in symbolic interactions. The bit stream that was memory
becomes the communication channel by which the two machines talk to each other.
They do not mention this possibility but it is a straight forward extension of their
model. It also explains the difference between the parallel processing in society and
in the brain as opposed to the sequential. We noted before the fact that there must
be a working backward connected with chunking. Well we see that the sequential
virtual machine of consciousness are merely stationary vectors in the spatial
machine. Everything that is moving in relation to these stationary vectors is
unconscious. They form a reference frame. What is inertial in relation to that
reference frame is sequential. So if the whole group is moving at a constant rate it
is the same as standing still. Whatever accelerates away or decelerates away is
suddenly parallel instead of sequential. Thus the transformation of a chunk from
parallel process to sequential has to do with synching it in the same inertial
reference frame which means decelerating or accelerating it to stationary. When its
position is fixed in relation to the rest of the stationary points it becomes conscious.
This gives us a dynamic picture in which there may be many different inertial
frames. If we take any one of them then whatever is stationary with respect to it
will appear as conscious. This gives us the possibility of multiple locuses of
consciousness in the universe of spatial machines as something accelerates or
decelerates away it becomes parallel and disappears from consciousness but it may
get in sync with some other inertial frame in which case that thought or set of
machines will become conscious to this other center of consciousness. This gives a
view of how we might have multiple minds and jumping from one inertial frame to
another we can jump form one stream of consciousness to another within the same
mental structure. The model also allows communication via flying bits between
these inertial frames traveling at different speeds in relation to the speed of light.
This informational aspect seems to be missing from Goertzel’s model although he
assures me it is there by the definition of the self-generating component system as a
structural transformation system which generates patterns. However, the Feldman
and Shapiro model give us the flying bits that can either be memory or
communications channels depending on whether one or both of the participants are
active. When we add that the machines are general in the sense of Arbib and Manes
and self-generating in the sense of Goertzel then we begin to have an interesting
model because the computational spatial machines must act as a community to
decide who will exist at the next moment and that decision is the category of spatial
511
machines acting back on itself via a functor. That is the definition of self
organizing from both directions. Internally they self-organize by producing
conspiracies and externally they self-organize by producing an order that they
impose as a group will on themselves. Thus we have the rudiments of law. Now
this is approaching a complete model of the relation of computing machines to
space which is by its nature social: social in the sense that self-generating
component systems must work together to actualize themselves and social in the
sense that the category of spatial machines is ordering itself by law as a functor
back on itself.
However, we want to go deeper than merely concocting a model of the relation of

machines to space which is social in nature. We want to determine the nature of
these machines and how their sociality comes directly out of the inner nature of
spacetime itself. We want a deep theory of computational sociology that defines
minimal social machines in a way that is inherently social not just a matter of their
mechanical relations to each other. And this going deeper has to do with lifting the
limitation that Feldman and Shapiro impose on themselves of considering only
three-dimensional spacetime. We will ultimately move away from this model of
three-dimensional spatial machines to higher dimensional spatial machines and by
means of that understand the intrinsic nature of sociality as it dwells within
spacetime and is ultimately embodied in space time through the presence of
minimal social machines.
7. Worldmaking
We shall introduce a framework based on worldmaking that will give structure to

our exploration of the relation between the social embodiment and spacetime. That
framework will be introduced in a series of tables that will be briefly explained.
Like the ontological levels in the last part of this study this framework will be used
in order to give a context for our work. The framework is itself a network of
interconnected nodes appearing in a table that forms a ring. It begins with the
Peircian-Fullerian categories folds them back on themselves asking to produce a
picture of what they can tell us about themselves. Then the Peircian-Fullerian
categories are arrayed against the Methodological Distinctions that embody order
and distance. These are then further arrayed against the kinds of correlates that are
discovered through distortion and cutting which are Johannson and Husserls
primary ways of world making. The types of correlates are arrayed against our
Social Science approaches discussed in the first part (phenomenology,
512
hermeneutics, structuralism and dialectics). The social science approaches are

arrayed against themselves and then against the Percian-Fullerian categories to
produce a full circle. This circle is like a Hermeneutic circle in that one must travel
around it again and again to capture the meaning of the diacritically interrelated
elements that appear within it. It is a set of arrays or tables like the tables we used
to discover the nature of the ontological levels. But in this case there is a ring of the
tables instead of a hierarchy. The ring has two major elements which are reflexive:
the Peircian-Fullerian categories and the Social Science approaches that are turned
back on themselves. These interact with elements that are drawn from the ways of
worldmaking given us by Goodman. Only one way of world making is not
represented which is “weighting” which we have related to tendency or propensity.
This last way of worldmaking haunts the ring as what lives in the interstices
between its nodes. We might weight different elements of the ring differently and
that would result in radically different worlds. However, worldmaking is not the
only element that exists in the ring of tables. There is the Peircian-Fullerian
categories that give us a view of the meaning of synthesis and there are the Social
Science approaches that give us radical different ways of looking at phenomena
related to society based on distancing
The purpose of this framework is to allow us to focus on the point where Johannson
and Husserl’s ways of worldmaking come into contact with the metric properties of
spacetime. This is the point where embodiment occurs. However, it is necessarily
to have the full apparatus of the ring in place so we can have a full context for
approaching the phenomena of embodiment. In order to understand this interface
we will start there and work back outward in order to establish the full context.
7.1. Deformation and Cutting
Johannson prefers cutting to Husserl’s use of deformation in order to discover the

nature of objects within the world. We are committed to using all the ways of
worldmaking together as a means of producing a robust ontology. We will cross-
relate both of these methods used by Husserl and Johannson and see what that gives
us.
513
Table 14:
Intensive Extensive
Non-deformable Deformable
Intrinsic Simple Manifold
Can’t deform and has Can deform but has
Slicing no parts no parts
does not
change
Extrinsic Skeleton Body
Has parts but cannot Has parts and can
Slicing deform deform
changes
This table immediately reminds us of the relation of body to soul or mind.

Classically mind or soul has no parts and cannot be effected by any kind of
deformation of the body. Thus without seeking much further we see that there is a
basis in our traditional way of thinking about things for at least two of our candidate
correlate types. But the typology also gives us two other types we are not so used to
thinking about. One is the skeleton which has parts but cannot be deformed. The
other is the manifold which can be deformed but has no separable parts. Manifolds
are addressed by topological surgery which transforms one manifold into another.
But the manifold itself is not effected by deformations because it is in topology
defined as that which can be deformed it is only if we cut a hole in it or add a handle
or some other surgical procedure that slices the manifold and reglues it that we get a
transformation of the manifold. The skeleton and the manifold have implications
for embodiment because we usually think of only the body which can be sliced and
deformed. We normally do not think of the skeleton and manifold. But of course
we have as part of our bodies a skeleton and something like a manifold -- the skin.
We also have some part which as Johannson says is coextensive with the body but
different from it called the mind or soul. In Old English that was called the Mood
which meant a unity of heart and mind. Thus we see that the use of deformation
and slicing ways of worldmaking give us a picture of the body that is embodied.
But it does not give us a picture of the place in which that body exists. For that we
must appeal to two different ways of world making that Goodman mentions.
7.2. Order and Composition
Spacetime has two major attributes that we are interested in this essay. One is the
fact that individuals of a kind (for instance the kind of the category of machines) are
instantiated in it in different places and instants with some kind of continuity of
514
connectedness usually called compactness and some way of moving into contact or
of communication between each other across the expanse of spacetime. This is the
prerequisite of embodiment. And we can use our way of worldmaking
“composition and decomposition” to identify instances and separate them and
ultimately count them and compose them into sets. As a result of composition and
decomposition which leads to enumeration and isolation of instances we can
consider the distance between any two instances. This is to say that space appears
to us primarily in terms of the distance between things.
Figure 96: Order and Distance
ORDERING
NO ORDERING
PARTIAL ORDER
LINEAR ORDER
DISTANCE
NO DISTANCE
DISTANCE
However, we are also interested in another closely associated way of worldmaking

which recognizes order and we are interested in the order inherent in space itself.
We are going to explore in detail in this essay the relation between things, like
minimal machines, and the inherent ordering that spacetime imposes upon them
when they appear as instances embodied within it. The discovery and explication
of the inherent ordering of spacetime has a long history beginning primarily with
the Greeks and leading to the development of modern mathematics which is
differentiated into many different mathematical categories. Our main task is to look
at some of this work already accomplished in a new and different light.
Figure 97: .Methodological Distinctions
Our journey will begin by exploring what Klir calls the basic methodological
distinctions that posit the different kinds of order and expressions of distance that
variables may take. We are looking at the possible combinations of orderings and
distance within space as might be expressed in variables. As Klir points out there
are basically five different possible kinds of order that the data in a variable might
have. There may be no order, partial order or linear order. There may either be
distance or not and these combine to give the five kinds of methodological
distinctions mentioned by Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving (ASPS)
and show in the figure.
We are interested in composing a general systems theory upon which to layer our
515
a
NO ORDER
NO DISTANCE
b
NO DISTANCE
PARTIAL ORDER
c d
LINEAR ORDER PARTIAL ORDER
NO DISTANCE WITH DISTANCE
e
LINEAR ORDER
WITH DISTANCE
specialized systems theories concerning dissipative systems, autopoietic systems

and reflexive systems. So to produce this general systems theory we will work
thought the list of methodological distinctions one at a time. But before we do that
we will establish the general context with our ring of tables that forms a self-
grounding network of the kind Rescher describes in Cognitive Systematization.
This context begins with the interaction of the metric of spacetime and the types of
correlate. But first let us take note of a few points.
First the metrics apply to variables used to describe anything that appears in
spacetime not exactly to spacetime itself. Our metrics take account of the fact that
spacetime itself may have a nature beyond what we can measure but as Klir points
out every system must have backgrounds and attributes identified in order to be
measured. The backgrounds are turned into support variables. What ever we
measure in a system in measured in reference to be backgrounds. Time and points
in space are primary candidates to be considered as backgrounds that can become
measurement supports. Only globally consistent metrics with respect to the system
under study are considered for this role. We will only consider measurement that
has reference to a system or some other correlate and not consider any direct
measurement of spacetime itself because we believe all measurements to be
relative. The nature of the thing measured is described by the types of correlate.
Thus in our study of the metric nature of spacetime we are reducing that to the
516
possible metric structures of any variable. Thus our results are applicable to any
variable by which the system is measured including both normal system variables
as well as support variables.
Second the methodological distinctions describe the locus of embodiment. Thus

our gaze is riveted on not the body or the other correlate types but on the locus in
which embodiment occurs. Embodiment is only idealized without this locus in
which embodiment occurs being spelled out in detail. Thus we will concentrate on
each level of the locus of embodiment more than on the body itself. I think this is a
point on which this study of embodiment differs from previous known studies. We
look out from the body toward the immediate locus in which embodiment occurs to
see what the possibilities for each body are yet we do not look at spacetime itself
directly but only at the potential for order and the expression of distance in
variables. So you see we are limiting our gaze to the schema through which we
understand spacetime and not looking at spacetime itself. We are turning away
from looking at the body toward the metric that is projected around the body. This
limitation is a very important strategy decision for this study which must be clearly
understood by the reader in order to get the gist of what follows.
7.3. The locus of embodiment: Table A
The table which discusses the methodological distinctions related to the correlate
types is the focus of this section. Here we see that as we ascend the levels of
methodological distinctions we get different manifestations of the correlates.
Simples appear as instances, sets, complexes, and fields. Skeletons appear as
nodes, lattices, networks, and arrays. Manifolds appear as plenums, clouds,
constellations and continuity. Bodies appear as schema, assemblage, construction
and machines. Note that we work our way from the simple with no order and no
distance that appears as instances to the body that is deformable and sliceable in an
ambiance that is fully ordered where we can posit the existence of a machine. So a
machine needs fully ordered spacetime to exist in. There is a range of positions
between these two extremes and we have suggested some names of these
intermediate positions. All these names are tentative and meant only to be
suggestive of the kind of things that might appear in the cells of our table. The
important thing is the overall construction of the ring of tables and the suggestion of
their mutual implication.
It should be noted that embodiment actually occurs between these two

combinations of the ways of worldmaking. This is the point of our positing the
517
level of embodiment in the generic explication of the ontological level. You will
notice that each aspect of the ways of worldmaking have an inherent connection to
Being. We posit that even the weightings that haunt this interface as tendencies and
propensities exist in relation to the uttermost kind of Being. But embodiment itself
occurs in relation to spacetime itself not its metric as a how which encounters dirt
and limits. We cannot deal conceptually with something that lies beyond Being so
we concentrate on the metric as the closest thing to the a-social context of the social
machine. But that contact between spacetime itself which is posited to have a social
infrastructure and the social machine occurs in the interstice between the
methodological distinctions and the types of correlate. Any one type of correlate
only exists in relation to a particular metric level at a time so each cell in the lattice
represents one of the possible interactions. So if we pick one, say the constellation,
then we see that the constellation is the effect of either linear order or partial order
with distance on the manifold. Now that describes the correlate in its metric space
but only hints at the nature of its embodiment we would still have to ask how is it
embodied to discover its Way of embodiment. That Way is a particular
manifestation of Li and Chi. It has specific limits and encounters particular forms
of dirt or resistance. Also that constellation will embody certain specific weightings
that connect it to the tendencies of Wild Being. Embodiment is the interface
between the nether most kind of Being and the splitting which obscures our view of
Primary Process. But we will not delve into this interface since it is conceptually
obdurant. Instead we will look deeply into the methodological distinctions which
are our gloss on the metric aspects of spacetime as they embody order and distance.
7.4. Metric and Peircian-Fullerian Categories: Table B
As we move away from the locus of embodiment we see next how the metric
aspects of the variables that describe spacetime and other things in spacetime
interact with the Peircian-Fullerian categories. We see things embodied in
spacetime in terms of either Firsts, Seconds, Thirds or Fourths. Each of these are a
gloss on the actually embodied phenomena that distorts it. We will not delve
deeply into the table representing this interaction because many of the elements
what appear in it will be explored along our journey. But notice that we are moving
in this table from the independent isolated elements where no order and no distance
intersect with the category First toward a minimal system of viewpoints where Full
order intersects with the category Fourth. The minimal system of viewpoints
expresses the different possible ways of considering any real-time system. The
viewpoints are specifically Agent, Function, Data, and Event. These are taken from
our study of real-time system design but have general applicability to the
518
description of any system. Notice that there is a single viewpoint called the
Catalyst in the cell where the Fourth intersects with no order and no distance
methodological distinction. Thus we see a development in which a single
viewpoint becomes a minimal system of viewpoints. If we add the minimal system
of viewpoints to the machine derived in the last table then we have a machine that
can take views of different kinds of any phenomena including itself. Note also that
in the other corner of this table there is a position in spacetime where Full order
intersects with the First. This is due to the fact that any movement that is four pi
(circles around twice) can describe a fixed point in spacetime. In spacetime you
have to be moving to stand still. Looking across the table from the single
undifferentiated viewpoint toward the independent isolated elements at the level of
no order and no distance we see that Seconds and Thirds are undifferentiated and
refer to internal relations and significance only. As we move up the levels of the
methodological distinctions we eventually get to the point where instances can be
seen as positions in spacetime and the whole cluster of firsts can be seen from a set
of differentiated viewpoints that can see it in terms of agency, function, data, and
events. At this level there are specific embodiments of data and event within the
full continuous body of metricized spacetime. The other aspects of this table will
not be explained at this time but as we encounter them in our journey. The
important thing here is to realize that there is an important interface between the
metric aspect of spacetime and the four levels of synthesis of correlates as
expressed by the Peircian-Fullerian categories.
7.5. Perician-Fullerian Categories Cross-related: Table C
When we consider the Peircian-Fullerian categories on their own we can see them
as interacting with each other. This gives us an interesting set of cells in this new
table. Each of the cells along the diagonal represent the interaction of a category
with itself. We see utterly isolated phenomena which is a First upon Firsts; then we
see the relations between relations which is a Second upon Seconds; then we see the
significance of significance which is a Third upon Thirds; and finally we see the
synthesis of syntheses which is a Fourth upon Fourths. Each of these exemplify a
kind of reflexivity. The utterly isolated phenomena is representative of what is
called the ephemeron and the synthesis of syntheses is representative of what is
called the Holoidal. These are two aspects of Being within the Indo-European
tradition. The complete derivation of these aspects of Being is given in my book1.
But briefly the derivation goes something like this. In the Greek language there is a
1.See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path beyond the Void.
519
fusion of three substantially different meanings under the rubric of Being: Reality,
Truth, and Identity. If we permute these aspects we get a structure called the
Trigrams of Being which show us the complete set of possibilities for the
expression of Being in its Primordial form. These trigrams of Being are produce by
permuting the three different sub-meanings and their opposites to produce eight
different possible interactions. All the negative meanings are brought together in
the ephemeron and all the positive meanings are brought together in the Holoidal.
The holoidal is the lost wholeness that is always striven after in the Indo-European
tradition and the Ephemeron is the feeling of utter emptiness that always plagues us
when we do not experience wholeness. These two are nihilistic opposites one too
light and the other too dark. They define the field through which the Western
tradition continually oscillates. The other aspects of the field are named: Essencing,
Eventity, Novum, Epoch, Integra, Holon. These will not be explained here. The
key point is that when we take the Peircian-Fullerian categories and relate them to
themselves bringing our their reflexive nature we get a structure related to the inner
structure of Being itself. Thus we know that we are at this point fully under the
auspices of Being working itself out in its core set of possibilities. Notice that the
already mentioned duality between vectors and category theory appears within this
field. Other than that we will not attempt to give a more definitive definition of the
cells of this field at this time. It is meant to be a suggestive sketch that connects us
to the inner workings of ontology and shows the efficacy of the using the Perician-
Fullerian categories as a bridge to the phenomena from within Conceptual Being.
7.6. Social Science Approaches and Correlate Types: Table D
Moving away from the locus of embodiment in the opposite direction we see that
each kind of correlate can be viewed in terms of each social science approach. This
should be obvious from what was already said in the first part of this study. Each
approach will see something completely different in the phenomena. Each one
relates to a different aspect of the simple and end up translating the body in different
ways. The same is true of the skeleton and the manifold. It is clear that this must be
the case because inner distancing of the observer from the phenomena can take
different forms where as outer distancing may only take one form. But outwardly
there are four different viewpoints on the system that correspond to these inward
approaches. Both require distancing but they have different bases. The four
viewpoints are more physicalistic where as the social science approaches are means
of access to the social or to consciousness. Thus the four viewpoints mentioned
before consisting of Agent, Function, Data, and Event establish the workings of the
machine where as the approaches give us access to its social nature. These work
520
together to give us a complete view of the different aspects of social machines. The
physical and social approaches give us different ways of accessing social beings for
our studies. They are complementary need not necessarily be in conflict.
7.7. Social Science Approaches Cross-related: Table E
We can do what we did with the Peircian-Fullerian categories and relate the social
science approaches to themselves as well. When we do that we get likewise
reflexive structures but of a different nature. Here along the diagonal each approach
is applied to itself and in the rest of the table they are all applied to each other. This
naturally occurs when the social science approaches turn in on themselves usually
out of self-doubt about their scientific worthiness. Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical
Reason is the only major study of the Dialectic which applies the dialectic to itself.
Ogden and Richards have a famous study called The meaning of Meaning.
Foucault’s the order of things can be seen as an attempt to give a structural account
of the development of structuralism. Phenomenology normally considers instances
of thought thinking about itself in fact this all started with the reflexive philosophy
of Descartes who could not doubt his own thoughts but managed to doubt
everything else. Reflexivity in the social sciences themselves is of course our first
point of departure for understanding reflexivity in society itself. In fact our own
social reflexivity can take exactly these same forms so that reflexivity in our social
sciences are a manifestation of the root reflexivity of society itself. Thus we can
look at this table and see all the permutations of the interaction of the reflexivity in
the object of study as well as in the means of study of society.
7.8. Social Science Approaches related to Peircian-Fullerian Categories: Table F
We relate our highest and lows table with a final table that takes our two sets of
elements that may exhibit reflexivity and relates them to each other. Here we see in
the column of Fourths several different manifestations of essence perception cum
abduction. These exist against the background that ties content to form through the
mediation of something like the noematic nucleus. Thus the whole infrastructure of
ideation stands opposite the locus of embodiment. Looking back at our generic
format for the ontological levels we see that the mechanism of the fragmentation of
being comes between ideation and embodiment layers in our model. We have seen
that the Perican-Fullerian categories intersect with the Social Science approaches at
the level of ideation. They are clearly manifestations of ideation. They along with
the rest of the tables we have considered stretch around the mechanism of
fragmented Being to approach the locus of embodiment.
521
Table 15: Peircian-Fullerian Categories Cross-related: Table C
First Second Third Fourth

First utter isolation, ephemeron establish relations vectors; magnitude plus one viewpoint projecting on
direction pure content.
Second establish relation relations between relations third as a side-effect of a mathematical categories as
relation arrow and set
Third vectorial position via calculus third as an origin for the duality significance of significance partial synthesis to full synthesis
Fourth Four viewpoints view one mathematical categories as full synthesis to partial synthesis synthesis of synthesis; holoid
position category and functor
Table 16: Piercian-Fullerian Categories related to Methodological Distinctions: Table B

no order, no dis- independent isolated elements. internal relations only internal significance only Catalyst viewpoint
tance
partial order, no nodes in a lattice lattice 1-4-6-4-1 duality mapping to lattice from ends of lattice; two viewpoints
distance both directions
linear order, no temporal gestalt causa sui minimal methods reduced machine (a+b+c-d) turing machine
distance; partial
order with distance
Full linear order position in spacetime (4pi) data and event embodiments full continuous spacetime four viewpoints
with distance
Table 17: Methodological Distinctions Related to Correlate Types: Table A
simple skeleton manifold body

Exclusive Intensive Inclusive Intensive Exclusive Extensive Inclusive Extensive
no order, no dis- instances nodes plenum schema
tance
partial order, no sets lattice cloud assemblage
distance
linear order, no complex network constellation construction
distance; partial
order with distance
Full linear order field array continuity machine
with distance
522
Table 18: Social Science Approaches Related to Correlate Types: Table D
Simple Skeleton Manifold Body

Exclusive Intensive Inclusive Intensive Exclusive Extensive Inclusive Extensive
Phenomenology intuition consolidation disfigure transform
Hermeneutics semiosis reification dissonance transsignify
Structuralism discrimination crystallization distortion transmute
Dialectics grounding hypostasis disintegrate transduction
Table 19: Social Science Approaches Cross-related: Table E.
Phenomenology Hermeneutics Structuralism Dialectics

Phenomenology Reflexivity; thought thinking Seeing the meaningful thing Seeing the discontinuities Seeing the part-whole relations
about itself
Hermeneutics The meaning of seeing The meaning of meaning The structure of meaning: Part-whole relations among
syntax meanings
Structuralism The structure of seeing The meaning of structure The structure of structure: deep The structure of the dialectic
structure
Dialectics The dialectic of seeing The meaning of the dialectic The dialectic of structure Dialectical dialectics as in
Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical
Reason.
Table 20: Social Science Approaches Related to Peircian-Fullerian Categories: Table F.

Phenomenology sensory content noematic nucleus idea essence perception
Hermeneutics gramme; text signs symbol relevance; significance
Structuralism formal content content categories form natural complex
Dialectics parts contradictions whole detotalized totality
523
7.9. The Ring of Tables
This ring of tables gives us a background from which we can pursue our studies of
embodiment. It gives us a basis for cognitive systematization which continually
goes round the ring as if we are in a Hermeneutic spiral. We are concentrating on
the phenomena of embodiment as it is mirrored in our notion of the metric of space.
We shy away from directly using social science approaches but attempt to stick
closely to the physicalist projections in order to show the social aspect of emergent
phenomena in its most bare or minimal form. The is not because we wish to reduce
the social to that level but because we want based on our social ontology to project
a theory of social machines that relies on the structure of the metrics of spacetime.
Once this is shown then the full panoply of social science approaches may be used
without further embarrassment or self doubt. If the social is inscribed into the
intrinsic ordering of our projection of spacetime then the social cannot be reduced.
We see the social in Bells Theorem in a proven spooky action at a distance. But
more than just being in one or two strange physical phenomena we want to prove
the umbiquity of the social by showing its embedding in the structure of spacetime
itself at the first level that we can catch hold of it with our concepts. That level is
the level of embodiment which is below the projection of fragmented Being but
above the level of the splitting of Li and Chi. By constructing a framework we are
able to focus on the phenomena we wish to study in a way that we could not do
otherwise. Our framework gives our studies a foundation even if it is not based on
ultimates but floating within the levels of abstraction away from Primary
Process.We use that foundation as a basis for exploring the different levels of the
metrics possibilities for variables expressing spacetime relations or any other
quantity relating to some system within spacetime.
524
Figure 98: Tables A through F projected on generic ontological level.
PROJECTION
meta-level
LEVEL
interaction
who what
approach
IDEATION
gloss
kindness F property
percept
substance
E C

distinction nexus
clearing
thing anti-thing
D
alteration
depth B
when
dirt
A
how
edge
where
SPLITTING
Chi
Li
MANIFESTATION
Great Ultimate
525
8. STAGE ONE
8.1. Things
We begin by considering the first methodological distinction which has no order

and no distance. It is of interest that at this stage only two Peircian-Fullerian
categories appear to apply which are the First and the Fourth. The eventity as a
First appears as totally isolated from everything else with no relations, no meaning
and no synthesis. Or the eventity can be seen as a viewpoint which we will name
the Catalyst viewpoint which is by definition a Fourth. We notice that the Catalyst
viewpoint may be envisaged as the intentional morphe of Husserl and that the
eventity as First is the pure hyle dominated by this Fourth. Thus what appears at the
first stage is exactly the basic abstractions that Husserl took as primitives for his
Phenomenological project. Seconds and Thirds if they exist at all only appear as
internal relations or internal significances within the eventity as First or the eventity
as Fourth. It is important to remember Nietzsche’s dictum that subjects are objects
turned inside out. So the isolated eventity as object can be seen as the outside of the
viewpoint whereas the viewpoint is the inside of the isolated eventity. Thus we
have from the very beginning the problem of embodiment of the mind. The
eventity is the body of a simple which as Johannson says coincides with it in space.
That body may be seen as having a manifold and skeleton. Through the
manifestation of the simple the body goes beyond itself and overflows ecstatically
into spacetime and other beings. Another important dictum is the distinction that
Heidegger makes between object and thing. The subject/object dichotomy is a
reification and beneath that gloss there is the thing that things as an event which is
prior to the subject/object dichotomy. We can go deeper than Husserl’s intentional
morphe and the hyle it dominates by realizing that the eventity considered as First
or Fourth is primarily a thing. Heidegger appeals to the etymology of this word to
point out that a “thing” is a gathering together. So the thinging of the thing is its
gathering. We may go further and point our that the “thing” was a social gathering.
Thus prior to the appearance of the reified subject/object there is a social foundation
in the gathering together either as isolated eventities or as primal viewpoints. The
isolation of the First is seen as a separation of what was gathered. The appearance
of the primal viewpoint manifests from the social gathering and is only as a
derivative moment isolated in the individual. Thus we see that to get the hyle and
the intentional morphe one must break the original fundamentally social gathering
by applying separation. Separation allows us to see isolated eventities and isolated
viewpoints. But before that application of separation there was the gathering that
was inherently social and in which the individual bodies and individual viewpoints
526
were not yet broken apart. We were surrounded by things thinging and that did not
distinguish between the people and the non-people that participated in that
gathering. That gathering was the cumulative projection of a world. In that
gathering there was no distance and no order. All relations and significances were
internal and not external. We notice that the projection of First and Fourth on it is a
destructive move that applies separation to the gathering. Breaking apart the
separate eventities and giving some of them viewpoints on the others. Thus as
Deleuze and Guattari say there is a level at which humans and machines cannot be
distinguished, that is prior to that distinction so that we can consider people as
constellations of desiring machines. This is another way of saying that in the Thing
the people, animals, and cultural objects along with the natural objects are all of a
piece and not differentiated. All of them are “things.” We still understand that level
of generality but have lost the sense that the thing is a gathering within which all
things are gathered and that it is primordially social. The social is a simple, like the
mind or soul, which is coextensive in spacetime with the eventities that embody it.
The fact that all the things are gathered together in the Thing is made possible by
the projection together of a world. Everything acts together to reinforce the
projection of that world. So when we find a Skythian artifact we have a fragment of
the Skythian world. We have lost almost everything else from that world including
all the people who inhabited it. But we can see in the artifact, as if it were a piece of
a hologram, a reflection of many aspects of the Skythian world. It is a thing which
expresses the gathering of all the things of the Skythian world which was essentially
a social Thing. So from the very beginning we affirm the social foundation of
everything when we see how in the first methodological distinction where there is
no order and no distance there is instead a gathering which is essentially social in
nature. Out of this gathering comes the reification of individual isolated eventities
and viewpoints. These appear through a process of separating the gathered. The
application of separation produces a plenum of pure distance within which
eventities are distinguished and that viewpoints oversee.
Let us assume that the eventity considered as First appears as a minimal system in
B. Fuller’s terms. That is the eventity appears as overlapping in time and within
the same purview in space as four eventities. We do not have to assign relations to
these four eventities and derive significations but we can merely apprehend them
within the compass of a single viewpoint. That viewpoint is the Catalyst. If we see
the eventities as desiring machines in Deleuze and Guattari’s terminology then this
Catalytic viewpoint is what they call the body-without-organs. For them there is a
positive twin to the Essence of Manifestation (Michael Henry’s ontological version
527
of the unconsicous). That positive twin is a cornucopia from which flows endless
variety of forms. They speak of intensity zero of the body-without-organs being the
practico-inert or matter. The intensity may increase from zero almost infinitely and
as it does so a variety of forms spill out of the body-without-organs. As it
approaches infinity we get schizophrenia which is the fundamental Dionysian social
patterning. The gathering of the Thing has a positive feed back that feeds on itself
constantly increasing intensity and that spiraling intensity leads to extreme variety
production which is ultimately seen as madness. It is only through repression that
this fundamental substrate of madness, or chaos, is defused and subverted by
turning it into a semblance of reason. As everyone knows reason has an irrational
basis. We can find reasons to justify anything. It is the tendencies or desires that
drive us to one set of reasons rather than another that are the basic phenomena
beneath the veneer of rationality. So understanding the Catalyst viewpoint is very
important. It is a cornucopia of the unfolding of a myriad of forms projected on the
passive content of the isolated eventities. It is a primal viewpoint in that it is very
close to the groupview of the Thing. Yet it has been broken off from the Thing
through an act of separation that places it within individuals within the group. One
might say that it is a Catalyst because the minimal system of eventities
spontaneously organize into myriad patterns in the presence of this viewpoint. We
see to take Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphor the different desiring machines
hanging on the body-without-organs like medals hanging on the chest of a
decorated general. Each desiring machine is orthogonal to all the others and springs
independently from the unconscious. These are patterned like a Kaleidoscope
constantly changing and introducing extreme variety. That variety production is the
work of the Catalyst viewpoint, the positive aspect of the body-without-organs. We
call the upwelling of that order physus if we relate it to all things or logos if we
relate it only to words. We can say that the eventities in this case can be the
components of the self-generating component system. The order is the rules by
which they generate magicians and anti-magicians. The self-generating
components may be viewed as desiring machines. The essence of manifestation is
the rift between moments in time across which the components have to jump by
generating a new cortege. The set of self-generating components of time zero hang
off of the uniform of the Essence of Manifestation appearing as the gap between
presentations. The self-generating components form endless patterns of variety
which as the intensity increases approach madness. These patterns are the work of
the Catalyst viewpoint continuously rearranging the components and ordering their
production of magicians and anti-magicians. When the new cortege is produced
then it hangs off of the Essence of Manifestation as well like medals off a soldiers
528
vest. The persistent patterns and persistent components are accounted for by a
conspiracy between components. But the source of that conspiracy must be the
Catalyst viewpoint. When we bring the catalyst viewpoint together with the
minimal system of eventities we get spontaneous generation of distance and order.
The Catalyst viewpoint holds the elements of the minimal system in a single
viewpoint and projects patterns on those elements or allows patterns to
spontaneously appear. But we see that the Catalyst viewpoint is the opposite of the
Essence of Manifestation. One is a black hole of what never manifests but
disorders everything that does manifest. The other is a white hole of the high
intensities of the body-without-organs which constantly spews forth order through
variety production. But order must be order of something. Thus the ordering of the
Catalyst must be projected on the minimal system. Order and distance arise
together out of this fateful interaction. We note that it is the cancellation of the
Essence of Manifestation with the Catalyst viewpoint that gives us the basic aspects
of Wild Being just as the cancellation of Process Being and Nothingness gave us the
basic aspects of Hyper Being. So the building blocks of our conceptual schema
place us at the edge of Wild Being which is where we must continually hover in
order to produce a correct picture of the social basis of our systems theory. What
occurs in the interaction between the Essence of Manifestation and the Catalyst
viewpoint? In the cancellation between these the tendencies are born. They are both
just the opposite ends of the body-without-organs. The Catalyst is where it
approaches intensity infinity whereas the Essence of Manifestation, unconscious, is
where it approaches the intensity zero of the practico-inert (matter). “Matter” is
merely another name for the dark matter of consciousness. Like the universe we
know that there must be lots of dark matter out there because when we look at our
own solar system we see lots of dark matter floating about. The practico-inert is the
embodiment of all the unconscious aspects of things. The interaction of
consciousness with the unconscious is the simulcrum of the interaction of
consciousness with the physical world. Both embody a waywardness or
intransigence that makes idealists shudder.
When we go back beyond the subject/object dichotomy to the thing we enter a

region in which the ways of worldmaking are not differentiated from each other.
The Thing and the world projected by it are a single unhewn matter. In it there is no
order, no separation, no distortion, no slicing, no weighting. What there is what
Ballard calls the Archaic. There is an unhewn worlding of the world. That
worlding of the world as Heidegger tells us consists of the fourfold: heaven, earth,
mortals and immortals. The fourfold participates in a mutual mirroring which is
529
like a round dance. This fourfold is a reflection of a single universal way of

worldmaking which the Chinese called the Way (Tao). When the Way is shattered
it gives rise to the fourfold. The fourfold is a way of worldmaking that is unique to
the Indo-Europeans. The fourfold opens up a clearing within which things may
appear. But this positive fourfold stands opposite a negative four-fold that is
always forgotten. The negative fourfold includes chaos, covering, night, and the
abyss. These two fourfolds are the root of our world. The difference of the
negative fourfold to the positive is that it preserves in itself non-transgression
whereas the positive fourfold embodies transgression. Both of these fourfolds arise
out of the Way to define the clearing within which the unhewn things abide. But
the clearing is not all transparent. There are darknesses within the clearing which
are the embodiments of the aspects of the negative fourfold. When we hew the
things turning them into objects and subjects then the ways of worldmaking
differentiate from each other. Separation is applied to the gatheredness of the things
within the clearing. Eventities are separated from the gathering of the Thing as are
the viewpoints that oversee the eventities. We find ourselves differentiating the five
ways of worldmaking and playing them off against one another. We find ourselves
differentiating the Peircian-Fullerian categories and the Social Science approaches
and playing them off against themselves and each other and against the ways of
worldmaking. We find ourselves constructing the network of tables already
presented as a way of articulating the world. But what we want to do is to poise
ourselves not in the unhewn of the Thing suspended between negative and positive
fourfolds or within the hewn differentiated world of the network of tables; rather we
wish to take up a position which is rough hewn at the point where the differentiation
begins at the level of the first and second bifurcations of the unfolding of the world.
Because we see that in the rift between the tables of the two pairs (deformation/
slicing verses order/distance) of the ways of worldmaking is where the weightings
appear. We need to explore what appears in this rift because that is where
embodiment occurs. The embodiment is the transformation from the thing
suspended between negative and positive fourfolds into the eventity exist in a space
of order and distance and can be manipulated by deformation and slicing. That
eventity is a bundle of weightings or tendencies or desires. Through progressive
reification it is turned into a desiring machine. It finds itself suspended between the
Catalyst viewpoint and the Essence of Manifestation which are the two poles of the
body-without-organs. The bifurcation of the ways of worldmaking is like the
turning inside out of the Thing. The positive and negative fourfolds become hidden
and are replaced by the two horns of the body-without-organs. We lose track of the
inherent social nature of the Thing. That social nature becomes reduced to the Id
530
(it) of the unconscious. It appears as the Catalyst viewpoint when it gains intensity
eventually reified into the generalized other. Finally we get an image of the self-
generating component system which are dispersed chaotic processes up against the
wall of the Essence of Manifestation (the ontological unconscious) and full of the
orderings that appear spontaneously as an effect of the presence of the Catalyst
viewpoint. If we de-reify we see that the whole set of chaotic self-generating
processes are a Thing that is suspended between positive and negative fourfolds. If
we de-reify we see that the bifurcation of the ways of worldmaking collapse back
together into a single Way. On this border between reification and de-reification we
see the weightings appear as the essential chaos that determines the bifurcation. As
was discovered by Feigenbaum bifurcation is ordered. Bifurcation occurs at
specific points in the unfolding of chaos. At the first bifurcation point the table of
order and distance separate from the table of distortion and slicing. Between them
the weightings or the values of the chaotic substrate become apparent. At the
second bifurcation the difference between the Peircian-Fullerian categories and the
Social Science Approaches becomes apparent. This is to say that the split at the
level of the ways of worldmaking produces a further split at a methodological level.
But by that time things have degenerated into ideational reflexive forms. Our focus
must again and again return to the rough hewn point of bifurcation at which the
chaotic basis (weightings or tendencies or propensities or desires) of social process
manifests between the two tables that permutes the other ways of worldmaking.
This vision of the social basis of the world which appears in the gathering of the
Thing between negative an positive fourfolds that induce the clearing within which
the world arises has deep implications for our understanding of systems. We posit
that the first stage in the unfolding of methodological distinctions that there is no
order and no distance. We posit that at the this first stage perhaps we have not
differentiated deformation from slicing so that we have not identified the kinds of
things that can be measured as simple, skeleton, manifold, and body. Here we see
eventities that arise together in minimal systems but have no intrinsic relations to
each other and do not generate any significances but come under the gaze of the
Catalyst viewpoint which acts as intentional morphe projecting on the hyle of the
eventities. The utter isolation of the eventities from each other is the Essence of
Manifestation which they emerge out of momentarily completely orthogonal to
each other and independent in every way. In the self-generating system this surface
of isolation is turned into the rift between moments. The catalytic viewpoint is
turned into the internal ordering of the self-generating components that allows them
to have conspiracies. We see here dual presentations of the same basic elements.
531
They are the fragments of the Thing shattered and having lost its essential social
aspect. This is necessary because the social aspect is the gathering itself. Once we
apply a radical separation to the Thing which produces the isolated eventities and
the Catalyst viewpoint an objectified scene appears and we are subjected to that
scene. Sociality is gatheredness and this is exactly what has been lost. But it lives
on and haunts that scene as the weightings, tendencies, propensities of the chaotic
and mad that is the basis of the objectified social project. The project is to put
things back together into a whole again. The shattering of the Thing produces this
insanity as a substrate that is always present at the basis of the objectified and
subjected view of reality. What is sane within the gathering of the thing becomes
unbalanced once the bifurcation begins to occur and the bifurcations eventually lead
to complete chaos. That complete chaos, artificially induced is reality and the
model of reality is war. The splitting of the Thing step by step leads to utter chaos.
In the Thing everything belongs together and are the Same. Once the Thing is split
we get the advent of identity in which each eventity is self-identical which is the
badge of its isolation. Finally with the splitting of the Thing truth differentiates into
separate kinds of truth for each kind of Being. There is the truth of the collective
unconscious identified with Wild Being, the truth of the subjective unconscious
associated with Hyper Being, the truth of manifestation connected with Process
Being, and last of all the truth of verification and correspondence linked to Pure
Presence. Where the Thing has a Primordial Being in which Truth, Reality and
Identity play against each other creating the eight trigrams of Primordial Being
(holoid, holon, integra, novum, epoch, essencing, eventity, and ephemeron); when it
is split we enter the realm of fused Conceptual Being in which Truth, Identity, and
Reality separate and produce the nihilistic landscape of reified objectification and
alienated subjugation. We posit that the Thing has as its aspects internally those
identified with the trigrams of Primordial Being as it displays higher and higher
levels of harmony within itself. Chang has identified these levels of harmony as
strife, logical consistency, interaction, mutual support and interpenetration. The
ephemeron is the lack of harmony or strife. The essencing and eventity have logical
consistency as the most basic kind of harmony. The novum and epoch display the
next level of harmony of interaction. The holon and integra display the harmony of
mutual support. The holoid displays the highest kind of harmony which is
interpenetration.1 By differentiating Primordial Being from Conceptual Being in
which all these distinct elements of Being are fused while Identity, Reality, and
Truth are cut asunder we are able to get a vision of the difference between the Thing
1.This is more fully explained in The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void
532
and the scene that occurs after the shattering of the Thing. We note that the Thing is
merely another name for Purusa, or Prajnapati, or Yamir -- the cosmic man cut
asunder by the Indo-Europeans as a means of constructing their world. The cosmic
man is inherently social because it is a projection of the community on the cosmos.
The destruction of the cosmic man allows all the separate things to appear in the
clearing of the world. His blood are the rivers, his skin is the earth, his bones are
the rocks, etc. This cosmic sacrifice present in all strains of Indo-European myth
also creates a world that is empty of meaning and where intentions continually go
astray. It produces a nihilistic landscape of strife in which all harmony has been
annihilated. The Indo-European project is to put the big man back together again
through the reenactment of the sacrifice. Sacrifice takes an animal -- the highest
sacrifice takes a horse or man -- and destroys their unity. In this act a glimpse of
primordial unity is produced -- a moment of harmony artificially produced through
anti-production within the nihilistic landscape created by the original sacrifice of
the Big Man.
In our theorizing we stand right at the rough hewn point between the unhewn and
the completely hewn where the first bifurcation occurs -- the death blow of the
sacrifice. We note that once that blow occurs the harmony of the Thing is
converted into the substrate of madness that haunts the objective/subjective
universe. This madness must from then on be repressed constantly by social
institutions. We live in a an objective/subjective world that has lost its gatheredness
its inherent social nature. In that world we envisage ourself as things which either
can or cannot be deformed or sliced. In that world we envisage the place in which
we dwell as being composed of orders and distances. Between these we feel the
weightings that speak of the underlying insanity that haunts the nihilistic landscape.
We continually harken back to the Thing in which we imagine harmony being
embodied -- the utopia that we project based on the Principle of Hope1.
The catalyst viewpoint can project onto the isolated eventities based on each of the
social science approaches. We can substitute phenomenology, hermeneutics,
dialectics, structuralism or some combination of these. In each case we get a
different set of relations and significations drawn out of the eventities. The social
science viewpoints differentiate the Catalyst viewpoint on the minimal system of
isolated eventities. Thus seeing the Catalyst viewpoint as the intentional morphe
following Husserl in his phenomenology is only one possible interpretation.
1.See Ernst Bloch
533
Instead we can view the Catalyst viewpoint as the flowing of meaning into the
world and see the generation of signficances. Or we can see the Catalyst viewpoint
as producing variety by causing structural discontinuities between forms. Or we
can see the Catalyst viewpoint as creating part/whole relations between things
within the world. All of these social science approaches become possible as
interpretations of the action of the Catalyst viewpoint on the minimal system of
isolated and independent eventities.
However instead of applying the Catalyst viewpoint to isolated eventities we can

see these same eventities as embedded in the Thing. As such we see the Thing as
founded on the bedrock of strife or the ephemeron. This bedrock of strife is the
realm of the shattering of the Thing itself. The Thing encompasses its own
shattering. But within the Thing there are higher levels of harmony that arise out of
the Strife within the nihilistic landscape that arises from the shattering of the Thing.
The first level makes the eventity as an isolated individual appear in relation to
other eventities. Each eventity has its own essencing forth as a kindness. The
kindness of essencing combined with the separation into an identifiable gestalt
gives us the basis for logical consistency as the most basic kind of harmony. At the
next level of harmony we see the novum and the epoch. The novum is another
name for the emergent event. The epoch is the temporal gestalt in which a
particular paradigm, episteme or interpretation of Being persists. The novum is
what shatters this organization and institutes a new organization. As we have said
before this adaptation to and generation of emergent events is what defines the
social nature of the Thing. This is the level of interactive harmony where regimes
of interactive organization appear and persist and then are shattered by the arising
of the genuinely new. At the next level we have the holon and the integra. The
integra is the coherence of the eventity beyond its kindness as defined as its
essence. The holon is the integration of part/whole relations within the holarchy of
the eventity. Here we get the harmony of mutual support arising. When we
consider the eventity in its relation with other sub or supra eventities as part of a
holarchy where the same eventity is seen either as a whole or part depending
whether one is looking upward or downward in the holoarchy. Of course we define
the holarchy as the intersection of what Goertzel calls the heirachcy and the
heterarchy. Here the individual eventities have their own natural Chi and Li that
gives them coherence beyond that which defines their kind. This special
individualized coherence together with the holonic character of each eventity gives
the minimal system of eventities the ability to give mutual support to each other.
Finally at the level of holoid we see the holographic nature of the eventity. Each
534
part carries a picture of the whole and what Boehm calls the implicate order
appears. Here each eventity interpenetrates with all the other eventities in the
minimal system. This is the positive face of the void. When we look at these levels
of connection within the Thing we see the nature of the social clearly. The social is
what allows us to form gestalts of natural complexes as kinds of eventities
essencing forth. We see this through our essence perception and hypothesize about
it with our abduction. The social is has in inherent character of the emergent which
defines both the advent of the new and the maintenance of the normal between
advents of the genuinely novel. The social is experienced as a holoarchy which
combines the heterarchy (lifecycle) and the hierarchy (functional kinds of work).
Within the social each individual has its uniqueness which cannot be reduced to its
kindness. Outside the field of the social this uniqueness of the individual cannot be
recognized. Finally the social partakes in interpenetration. Each individual has an
image of the whole (Mead’s generalized other) within it. This appears as the
possibility of spooky action at a distance through intentionality. It also shows how
the social emanates from the void and is essentially embodying the void. This is
because interpenetration is the positive face of the emptiness of the void.
Looking at the internal structure of the Thing we see that we recognize the aspects
of the social in the different levels of its harmony. And we see that the ephemeron
is implicit within that structure. Thus when Identity, Reality, and Truth become
separated within the realm of Conceptual Being this has already been prepared
within the inner structure of Primordial Being. Within the Thing there is a moment
of the anti-social as the ephemeron. Within Conceptual Being there is a moment of
the social as the weightings, tendencies, propensities that haunt the subjugated
objective universe. These two phases of the Thing and the Objective world belong
together and are in fact the Same. Our movement between the utopian image of
society and the projection of the physical universe is the eternal return of the Same
within the Western worldview. The fact that we have to deal with our self-
alienation from the Thing as we confront the objectified universe as lonely subjects
is implicit in the dialectical relation between our utopian ideals and our socially
constructed reality that is in fact anti-social. The structural relations between these
two phases underline the fact that they are two aspects of the same thing.
Phenomenologically we see that the Thing gives us the basis of a social
phenomenology which turns over the transcendental idealism of solipsistic
phenomenology. Hermeneutically we see that the lost meaning within the objective
universe is gathered together in the always already lost origin of the Thing -- the
cosmic sacrifice of the big man as either Yamir, Prajnapati, or Purusa.
535
8.2. Aphorisms
An aphorism is a saying. For instance, Heraclitus has the saying:
Nature likes to hide.1
When the isolated eventity that appears is a speech act then a situation obtains
which needs special consideration. We move from physus to logos which is a
primal split in our apprehension of the emanation of things. The recognition that
these two emanations are the Same and thus belong together has been lost in the
Western Tradition. In China there was a single phenomenon of unfolding called
Chi with an inner pattern called Li whether it arose within man as speech or outside
man in nature. No split was made in the unfolding of speech and the unfolding of
nature like the split devised by the Greeks. Our Western proclivity to dominate the
unfolding of nature through the unfolding of speech did not occur to the Chinese as
a possibility. This attempt to dominate the outward unfolding by the inward
unfolding is called ideation. We produce ideas as a means of representing and
controlling outward phenomena. And this is the root of all out dualisms: mind/
body, etc. Derrida looks back on this history and sees that speech has superceded
the more basic human physus of writing. We can see writing as our own physus
which is obscured by the overlay of speech which produces illusory continuities by
means of which ideas are projected on nature. But what is the logos of nature if
writing is the human physus? The logos of nature is technology. That is nature
turning back on itself to become self-controlling, self-guiding, self-moving, self-
producing. Through technology nature speaks to itself via the mediation of man.
Though writing man speaks to himself though the mediation of nature as pen and
tablet. It is amazing that all of our culture is dependent on this mediation, this
essential technology of writing but that the ephemeral speech is the master
dominating and obscuring writing giving it a secondary role. Speech by itself
produces an ephemeral culture which vanishes with the speakers. But through
writing, if enough of a body of works survives we can consider ourselves inheritors
of the culture of the Greeks. And where do we deposit what we write and what is its
medium but nature itself. So when Heracitus says, “Nature likes to hide” on
meaning of this is that it hides in us. It hides in us as our physus beneath the logos
as the substrate of ideation and the means of cultural transmission. But we also see
that the “Logos likes to hide, as well.” It hides in nature as the speech of nature
talking to itself in the form of self-steering, self-moving, and self-production. If
Physus is the Chi of nature and Logos is the Chi of man, then the self-steering, self-
1.Anacllia to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers Kathleen Freeman (Harvard U.P. 1948) page 33; number 123
536
moving, and self-production of nature must reveal its Li whereas the writing of man
which reveals his physus must reveal man’s Li. Thus we can say that the Logos
loves to hide within reified nature just as the Physus loves to hide within man as
reified speech, cum cultural artifacts. What we call the logos of nature it its Li.
What we call the physus of man is his Li. Li is the inner patterning or coherence
revealed through the flow of the Chi. The Li is the Yang inscribed within the Yin.
We read the inner nature of man in his cultural writings passed down through the
ages. We read the inner culture of nature in its self-steering, self-movement, and
self-production.
Timons gave a sketch of Heraclitus as follows:
Among them Heraclitus the mocker, the reviler of the mob, the riddler, rose up.1
The aphorism may be seen as a riddle, or a mocking speech that teases the hearer
and demands explanation. It is an eventity within the Logos, a crystallization of
speech that demands more speech in explication. But given the typology advanced
above we can see the aphorism in four forms.
• a speech event, a riddle (logos in man)
• a writing event, an enigma (physus in man)
• a natural event, an mystery (physus in nature)
• an linguistic event, a conundrum (logos in nature)
We stand like Oedipus before the Sphinx. Oedipus was asked a riddle but written
within him was the enigma of his birth that would tragically be revealed. Then too
there was the mystery of the plague on the city of Thebes which manifested
outwardly as a natural event. And then again there was the conundrum of the oracle
of Apollo that had rejected him as unclean. In Oedipus we see each of these aspects
of the puzzling nature of existence as different faces of the truth which likes to hide.
Physus hiding in man, logos hiding in nature. So the interaction of physus and
logos once split is not simple but very complex. The tragedy of Oedipus reveals the
deep insight that the Greeks had into the tragedy that unfolds from the fatal splitting
of the primordial upwelling that we have inherited. The unity before this split
stands as an always already lost origin which we can never recover. It is covered
over by a primal scene of incest which breaks fundamental taboos.
The aphorism is as it arises out of the Thing, as it gives us insight into the nature of
1.Early Greek Philosophy Jonathan Barnes (Penguin 1987)
537
things, is not merely a sentence pulled out of the stream of speech. The aphorism is
a crystallization of thought perhaps so dense that it can never be fully explicated.
But it may also be seen as something inexplicable in nature, something inexplicable
in the traces of men that shows us something of their inner nature, something
inexplicable in saying of nature to itself. Like the DNA code by which dumb nature
teaches itself the dance of life. The aphorism in this sense is ur-speech, a primal
speech to which we must cock an ear and listen with a special attentiveness. We are
most interested in the logos within nature, but cannot consider it in isolation from
the other manifestations of physus and logos. We cannot consider it without
contrasting it to our writing obscured by speech. That writing elsewhere1 has been
identified with software. The DNA in nature is software. The software we create
for computers has the same nature that Derrida finds in writing that underlies
ideation he calls differance. It appears as a new kind of entity existing at the third
meta-level of Being. Note the similarity of software with DNA by which organisms
guide their self-production. Thus there is an inner connection between the physus
within man and the logos within nature.
The key point about aphorisms is that they are singular phenomena. They exist as
isolated individuals which lack a framework that makes explanation possible. We
bring them under a single purview but cannot fully explicate them. We are reduced
to noting their occurrence and venturing tentative explanations and speculations. But
in the end they stand like relics from archeological expeditions mixing speech and
silence.
8.3. Axioms
Aphorisms taken together may form a set of axioms that work together to create
an effect. But this effect is projected upon the aphoristic axioms which stand mutely
containing undefined terms like the geometrical point. When we consider the
aphorisms themselves, like those of Euclid, then we see them as isolated individuals
which appear out of the void to stand near each other without touching. In the axioms
of Euclid the four types of puzzle abut each other. The Axioms are sentences from
speech and thus are part of the logos. But in order to make something of them one
must engage in proof which is a unique kind of algorithmic process which is like
software of the mind. It is meant to connect things to the axioms by a series of steps.
In Euclid’s geometry the steps concern the writing of lines upon the dust as is done
by Meno’s slave at the bidding of Socrates. Thus the sayings speak about writing and
allow traced constructions to appear flowing from the axioms. But there is a relation
1.Software Engineering Foundations: Software Ontology (manuscript)
538
between these traces in the dirt and physical phenomena. We see planets traveling in
ellipses. We construct the ellipses in traces in the dirt based on out axioms and then
look at the sky and see, by the time of Kepler, that the planets are tracing the same
figures, which by the time of Newton we realize that they are falling around these
ellipses. Prior to this alignment between out traces and the phenomena we assumed
that the planets must be moving in circles and made elaborate constructions to show
how the circles within circles had to be constructed to imitate elliptical motions. But
finally when we align our mathematical geometrical constructions with our
observations of the world we get some insight into the logos within nature, that is the
inner reason behind myriad phenomena like Newtons law of gravity that connects
what happens in the celestial realm with what is happening in the terrestrial realm.
This confrontation between the different aspects of the aphorism within the axiomatic
system gives us further insight into the set of axioms. We can only understand the
axioms by looking at how they unfold into the formal system and how that formal
system gives us a means of understanding nature. However, formal systems can only
take us so far and eventually we must resort to structural systems to give us a better
grasp of phenomena. The structural system digs even deeper into the nature of the
aphorism. In the structural system the closure of the formal system is given up for
greater explanatory power. The explanation of chemical reactions on the basis of the
theory of actions is a good example of a structural system. Here we have elements.
We do not ask why these hundred or so elements with exactly these properties. They
are the givens, the independent isolated units that we explain structurally by the
theory of the structure of the atom. The atom is a matrix within which all possible
atoms can be constituted and the transformations and interactions between atoms can
be understood. The atom is an aphorism of pure physus. Why these elements in this
order with these interactions and transformations. This is the riddle of the atom that
is seldom asked. But our theory of the atom’s structure is a linguistic conceptual
construct. That is pure logos. We seek to align our theory of the atom with the
behavior and existence of phenomenal atoms. And out theory of the atom very
successfully does that as is proven by many successful chemical results. This
alignment of logos and physus is the goal of physics. But we see that out scientific
culture that explores the ramification of this theory and the fine points of chemical
reactions is dependent on writing of scientific articles. And those articles are not just
dependent on theory but essentially dependent on experimentation. Experimentation
links the theory with the phenomena. In experimentation the link between the
phenomena and the theory of the phenomena is forged. What is experimentation but
a writing on nature which when read back gives us an intimation of the logos within
nature. Thus in science the physus within man is directly linked to the logos within
539
nature. This link allows our theory of the atom to become aligned to finer and finer
degrees with the phenomena of atoms. Experimentation is the nexus of embodiment
within science. Through it theories become embodied but this occurs when the
physus in man is directly linked to the logos in nature. Experiments are a way for man
to listen to the logos in nature by writing into nature and seeing the results when that
writing is read back as observations. The link between the physus in man and the
logos in nature allows the alignment between pure logos and pure physus.
Embodiment occurs at the crossover point. Thus we must look in embodiment for the
intersection between the logos in nature and the physus in man.
8.4. Requirements
In Systems Engineering everything revolves around requirements. Requirements

are themselves individual isolated statements of needs or demands, in short, of
desires. The best requirements are orthogonal to each other and as a set they should
form a locus like a set of axioms from which the system is derived as an answer.
Requirements Analysis is the basic kind of work which deals with requirements
attempting to make them as clear and distinct as possible following the dictums of
Descartes. Requirements are analyzed and separated from each other then logged in
a database to form the basis of all other kinds of systems engineering work. The
major problem of building systems is the changes to systems requirements during
development. These changes have disastrous consequences but are all but
impossible to avoid since most customers do not know what they want or need until
they see it.
Requirements express desires. Systems Engineering builds machines that fulfill

desires. Thus we might say that the object of Systems Engineering is to construct
desiring machines -- that is machines embedded in desires and that have desire
embedded into them. Those desires must form a nexus like an axiomatic set where
the logos and physus may come into harmony. They come into harmony through
the logos within the physus and the physus in man connecting to produce an
embodiment. In this case the logos is the system design and the physus are all the
properties of physical things that must be taken into account by the design. The
physus in man is the writing of the design and the construction of the system
prototypes. These are experiments which use trial and error and ad hoc means to
approach a solution that simultaneously satisfies many competing constraints on the
system. The logos within the physus is the set of possible satisfactory designs
which will result in a working system. Between the set of possible satisfactory
designs that simultaneously satisfy all constraints and the set of designs and
540
embodiments which may not satisfy all the constraints that are produced is where
the actual embodied system comes into existence as an actual embodiment of the
desired system that works. The production of contact between the logos in nature
and the physus in man is an exercise in constructivism. No ideal method can
guarantee success. Only trial and error and ad hoc methods can finally produce a
satisfactory solution. As Feyerabend says for science so to the dictum holds for
systems engineering “Anything Goes.” The floundering around for workable
solutions is only matched in intensity by the various attempts to actually distill the
actual requirements for the system being built. To the extent that the requirements
adequately express real desires and to the extent that these desires can be satisfied
by an actual system, to this extent the work of systems engineering can be
successful. That requires the vision of a systems architect whose role is described
well by Eberhardt Rectin through a series of aphorisms. But beyond that vision it
requires the different kinds of work that make up Systems Engineering to be applied
together in a non-routine way with insight and perserverance. Every experiment
that occurs in science presents a systems engineering problem. This only becomes
clear as the experiments and the apparatuses become more complex but is true in
even the simplest experimental situations. When Bacon takes his chickens out into
the cold he does not consider the effects of the experiment on the observer and so
dies of pneumonia. The experiment embodies a series of desires set up by the
theory as a hypothesis. The experiment must adequately satisfy all these desires
and produce a clear cut result. The experimental design must create a situation and
an apparatus that satisfies these requirements. Many times this requires a great deal
of constructivist work and ad hoc trial and error techniques to be tried before a
satisfactory experimental solution is found which can lead to clear cut positive or
negative results. As Popper has said everything in science that is not testable is
really just philosophy. The rigor of producing testable theories which give good
hypotheses and can lead to fruitful experiments is a high art. But within that art is
another art in designing the experiment which is basically a systems engineering
task. Systems Engineering is an intrinsic and crucial part of science that is usually
forgotten because all scientific articles are written backward. They do not tell how
solutions are arrived at but tell the solutions as if they appeared out of nowhere so
the clever systems engineering that allowed those results to be obtained is hidden.
This is the reason that science is open to fake results. I can claim any result if I do
not have to be specific about how I got that result. Built into science there is a
blindness to systems engineering. Each experimenter must start from scratch in
order to try to reproduce results and essentially do the systems engineering of the
experiment over again. If multiple differently designed experimental apparatuses
541
come to the same result the result ceases to be contested. In that work of
verification by multiple experiments is a great deal of systems engineering work
which produces unique solutions to the same problem over and over again. This
systems engineering work is where science actually comes into contact with its
object. The goal is to produce an experimental apparatus that will show a particular
phenomena in a specific light. The apparatus is not an end in itself as it is in many
systems. The apparatus is a means to reading the logos of nature, its Li or inner
patterning. This is done by finding a way to manipulate the physus in man, his
ability to write on nature so that the result may be read by him as an observer of the
experiment. Here the logos in nature and the physus in man are much more starkly
portrayed but the same juxtaposition occurs in any systems engineering project
even where the system is an end in itself as a satisfaction of desires. This is because
any physically manifest system is in some sense an experiment whose outcome is
uncertain. That is why testing is an important part of systems engineering
discipline.
8.5. The Metaphor of the Birds and the Fish
In this stage we have explored the first methodological distinction which has no
order and no distance. Such distinctions are like the distinction between male and
female. It is a pure distinction like on or off that only has meaning in relation to a
network of other distinctions. At this stage we saw that what appears within the
web of unordered non-distanced distinctions is a minimal system of independent
isolated eventities. The eventities are Firsts. Opposite these appears the Catalyst
viewpoint which is a Fourth. The Second and Third Peircian-Fullerian categories
do not seem to apply at this stage. The Catalyst viewpoint may take on the coloring
of any of the methodological viewpoints. We normally think of it in terms of the
intentional morphe of Husserl’s phenomenology projecting on the hyle of the
eventities. However we can take another view which attempts to withhold this
projection. That other view sees the eventities of as things in their essentially social
setting instead of as reified objects. Here we see that counter to the empty nihilistic
world of the objective physical universe there is an intensely social world within
which things are submerged in the process of social constitution. Here Primordial
Being dominates over Conceptual Being. And we have shown the reversability of
these two ways of looking at things/objects where the Primordial Being of the
Thing contains the anti-social strife ridden ephemeron whereas the objective
universe contains the hauntings of tendency that still weakly point back to the social
in spite of all the attempts of science to expunge it.
542
Even when we consider the eventities within the objective universe alone rather
than things we see that they are a mixture of logos and physus. We see this in the
nature of aphorisms, axioms and requirements. This mixture of logos and physus
again points to the social basis of our phenomenology because the science that
explores nature arises from beings that are part of nature. It appears as a shared
belief system forged intersubjectively as a historical project. This project must
work with all the different shadings and combinations of physus and logos and
depends upon embodiments to make the connection between these two reified
aspects of the upwelling Chi that makes manifest the inner coherence of things
called the Li. Little did our progenitors realize that by splitting physus and Logos
and producing dualisms would that necessitate the extreme efforts needed to bring
these two back together again. That bringing back together produces the realm of
embodiments. And it is embodiments that we are studying so assiduously. If we
cannot see the embodiments as things within the social context of the Thing where
the different levels of harmony are realized. If instead we must view the whole
universe through the lens of the strife of the ephemeron then we still see that the
production of embodiments is a social project which connects these embodiments to
desires as requirements. We see that the embodiments may be part of the praxis of
science or just pure expressions of need. The requirements are based on desires
which are tendencies, propensities, or weightings born of the schizo substrata that
permeates and huants the objective universe in spite of all attempts to suppress it.
This schizophrenic substrata is all that is left of the multi-layered harmony of the
world based on the Thing which expresses Primordial Being instead of Conceptual
Being. Deleuze and Guattari speak of the layers of the Oedipus complex. But for
Oedipus we read Ideation. The layers are the savage inscription on the social self,
the barbaric tyrant, and capitalism. The writing which is the human physus is
expressed socially by the tatooing and torture in initiation of the members by other
members. The tatoos become an expression of belonging and thus take on a
linguistic function. In the stage of the barbarian tyrant one self comes to
overwhelm all other selves and the generalized other of the social group is
embodied in the tyrant. The tyrant for the Greeks is one for whom everyone in the
state is treated as part of the tyrant’s household, that is part of his person. In
capitalism this function of control escapes from the grasp of one man so that the
social group becomes dominated and tyrannized by the systems that it has set up
such as production and exchange of commodities. But all of these layers merely
express the levels of the reification of Ideation. From the no-trace of the unadorned
humans arises the savages that inscribe themselves with traces of their social group.
Within this social group arises signs of functions of the social group itself the most
543
insidious of whom is the tryrant who attempts to be a sign of the whole. And then
finally the functions break free of embodiment within the group and become free
ranging and out of control forms that express functions. Ideation is Form plus sign
plus trace plus no-trace. What Deleuze and Guattari fail to describe is the pre-
savage wild human society that does not tyrannize itself and inscribe itself. These
were the people of the waters edge described by Morgan.1 The people of the lost
epoch of human evolution. The people who went back into the sea and returned.
This long lost experience before hunter gathers gives us at the root of our
worldview an essential relation to the sea. And the sea cannot be inscribed. Homer
calls it the “unplowed sea.” It is from there we get the essential metaphor for Chi of
FLOW. It is this which lies beyond the physus/logos dichotomy. And the standing
waves or tides form a pattern that expresses Li.
The eventities are like the birds above the sea or the fish below the surface that
move in flocks and schools. When the birds look down they see their shadows and
then other shadows below the water. When the fish look up the surface is like a
mirror in which they see their distorted image and beyond the mirror the dark
shapes of the fish. Among the fish are the dolphins who are the long lost friends of
man. Men who lived on the edge of the sea might have ridden the dolphins out to
where only the fish and birds were visible. But the essential relation between fish
and birds in relation to the surface of the sea is what lies beyond social inscription.
Sometimes the flying fish break the surface of the water or the birds dive for a meal.
But for the most part there is the strange mirroring in which each sees themselves
against the shadow of the other. When Heidegger speaks of the mirroring of the
fourfold this is the kind of relation he is attempting to describe. Here the fish see
their own reflection along with the shadows of the birds that exist in a different
medium. So to the birds see their own reflection along with the shadows of the fish.
They are independent but the shadows and reflections mingle for each differently in
their separate realms. This is an essential model of interpenetration because each
thing is essentially in its own medium and the reflection of that thing and the images
of all the other things from its point of view mingle together in each thing. So we
can say that a realm of Primordial Being lies before the series of destructive phases
of the unfolding of ideation in the guise of the Oedipal complex. Those stages
demonstrate the construction of Conceptual Being is a social project with vast
ramifications. We sketch the source of this as the idyllic era when men returned to
the sea. But we can see that as well in the ideal of the moieties of all men and all
1.The Decent of Woman
544
women posited by???? in???? which Deleuze and Guattari call a strange book.
There is a social model for the birds and the fish where men and women inhabited
separate social groups that operated on an exchange basis like moieties. In that
ideal world the men would see their reflection in the moiety of women mingled with
the shadows of women. So to women would see their reflection in the moiety of
men mingled with the shadows of men. This impossible social situation, the only
solution to certain anthropological dilemmas, is reflected mythologically in the
stories of Centaurs and Amazons. These two speculative examples of a mirroring
like the mirroring that Heidegger describes in the round dance of the fourfold show
us primal scenes of intrinsic harmony of the Thing. It is a more fundamental and
primary primal scene than that of inscription expressed either as the pen and the
tablet in semitic sources or the well and the tree in Indo-european sources. In this
more basic primal scene the essential difference between the pen and tablet or the
well and the tree vanishes. Instead of objects we have flocks or schools of birds or
fish which experience essentially the same phenomena of mirroring and shadows.
Here we see a mingling of the positive fourfold as mirroring and the negative
fourfold as the shadow of the Other. The whole of this more basic primal scene
calls attention to the surface of the water. When it is calm and not pierced it reflects
more perfectly. It is the very image of the source of primal causation beyond
mirroring and reversibility -- that is pure yang beyond the yin in yang of secondary
causes. If the Chi is the swimming of the fish and the flying of the birds in swarms
that is an expression of pure yin. If the Li is the patterns of the changing
configurations of the flock or school in flight. Then the occasional flying fish or
diving bird will appear as a secondary cause for the changing of the pattern as it
dodge the intruder form the other realm. But the difference between realms is
fundamental and so the surface of the sea appears as the great unifying cause that
makes fish fish and birds birds. This pure difference between realms is invisible for
both yet it is the means of seeing and partially interacting for both with the other.
The pure yang is invisible because it sets up the mirroring between different yin
realms. The eventities as separate individual and isolatable things appear in these
realms. The excursions of secondary causes across the boundaries from one realm
to the other appear like the Catalyst viewpoints which are pure Fourths thrust into
the sea of Firsts. So our attention is focused on Firsts and Fourths or upon the pure
yin or the yin in the yang. Attention is taken from the yang in the yin called Li or
the pure Yang of the primary causation. The yang in the yin is suppressed because
it point s back to the idyllic world of the Thing with its Primordial Being that fills an
world made sterile by objectification. The pure yang is suppressed because it
unifies all phenomena as interpenetrating. It is significant that the highest level of
545
harmony expressed in the Primordial Being of the Thing is interpenetration as

fullness of the holoid. Pure Yang may be seen in the reflection of interpenetration
as emptiness. The social at its highest point of harmony plunges out into that
emptiness marked by the surface of the sea.
The objective world in which at the level of no order and no distance contains only
Firsts and Fourths and thus only pure yin and yin in yang fits like a glove to its
opposite that contains the social reality of the yang in yin of the Thing and the pure
yang of the primary cause. The only other question that might be asked is where
does the light that lights this reflection that unites positive and negative fourfolds
come from. It is truly a divine light.
9. Stage Two
Speaking about stage one was difficult because lack of order and distance constricts
our view of any system to such a degree that only the individual isolated elements
are left and perhaps the viewpoints on those elements. It is interesting that these are
exactly what appear in Husserl’s phenomenology as the intentional morphe and the
hyle which interact to produce noesis and noema. So as we graduate to the second
stage we will be exploring the realm in which noesis and noema are produced. Of
course we are interested in a much wider application of these differentiations of
consciousness into the perception and the perceived, but Husserl’s phenomenology
gives us a touchstone from which to take our bearings. Now we enter the realm of
the methodological distinction which gives us partial ordering. A power set gives
us all the possible ordering of a set of elements. The power set forms a lattice that
stretches from the null element to the full set of all the elements. A power set is a
full ordering. A partial ordering is some subset of a power set. When we speak of
transformations a partial ordering gives us one way transformations that may not
necessarily be reversible. Thus variables that are partially ordered may not have
ways to get from one value to another in a smooth via smooth route. There well be
discontinuities between values. A partial ordering is portrayed best by overlapping
circles of Venn diagrams. With partial ordering the isolated independent elements
come into contact for the first time. We do not know their linear order or their
distance from each other. All we know is that some elements are grouped and some
are not. The operations that transform the groups may not be reversable. Thus just
because something is grouped before an operation does not mean it is grouped after
the operation or that you can get back to the prior grouping. Partial order is
minimal ordering. It is one notch above no ordering, just having distinctions. It is
546
an ordering with the minimal assumptions as to how you can manipulate the
ordered elements.
When we move to the stage where the minimal ordering we call partial ordering
appears in which our systems are arbitrary groupings of components, no longer
totally isolated but still independent and only loosely controllable by their ordering,
then we notice that our primordial Catalytic viewpoint is transformed. It splits into
two other viewpoints called Agent and Function. The agent viewpoint sees the
autonomy of the components. The function viewpoint sees the intentionality of the
components. The agent viewpoint sees the independence of the components within
their groupings. The functional viewpoint sees the differences of the components
from each other in their groupings. Notice how important it is that there is a
grouping as a basis for seeing independence or difference. By seeing independence
in relation to the group of a component the agent viewpoint sees the individual
components as autonomous. By seeing difference in relation to the group of a
component the functional viewpoint sees individual components as having an
intentional use in relation to the rest of the group. This bifurcation of the primordial
viewpoint is a very important phenomena. It is based on the arising of the Fourths
of the agent and functional viewpoints on the partially ordered Firsts that it is first
possible to see Seconds and Thirds. The agent and functional viewpoints are a co-
dependent arising like the co-dependent arising of the hyle and morphe. Here there
is a specific qualitatively different light shed on the same Firsts from each of the
mutually dependent arising viewpoints. Agency is more closely related to noemata
and Function is more closely related to noesis. This is because the agency
viewpoint sees the Firsts as independent of consciousness whereas the function
viewpoint sees them as more dependent on consciousness. Thus within both of
these viewpoints the hyle is fused with the morphe but with different emphasis on
independence or functional dependence. In either case within the partial ordering is
set up relations (Seconds) and significances (Thirds) of relations. In the case of
agency the relations are between independent entities which are in effect external
and projected. In the case of function the relations are between mutually dependent
entities which are in effect internal and discovered. In the case of agency the
significances are by definition as they arise out of communication. In the case of
function the significances are diacritical.
It is of interest that we have one methodological distinction (partial order) that

produces two different viewpoints (agent and function). With the arising of those
viewpoints the nature of the First and the Fourth are themselves changed. The First
547
is no longer independent isolated elements but independent grouped elements. The

Fourth is not just a Catalyst but actually acts on the Firsts via the projection of
agency or the discovery of function in their groupings. And here we see for the first
time autopoiesis arising as a significant matter for our thought. The dominant
paradigm of our science is functional seeing how parts have different uses within
wholes. Autopoiesis as a paradigm calls attention to the individuals and draws
attention away from the species. It emphasizes the importance of autonomy to life
instead of the function of the individual within the evolutionary process. Thus we
can see that autopoiesis in its emphasis on autonomy is a counter balance to the
dominant functional paradigm and thus seems to us new and exciting from an
intellectual viewpoint. But it is only because function has been over emphasized by
science in the past that we can feel this excitement because these two viewpoints or
grouped components arise together and must mutually define each other.
Functionality cannot exist without autonomy and vice versa. Autonomy was
always assumed in all evolutionary theories and ignored as an uninteresting given.
The theory of Varela and Maturana has merely shown that was taken for granted by
evolutionary theories, the locus of life in the autonomous individual organism, has
some interesting theoretical properties worth dwelling upon. Functional theories
that start with holes and see individuals as parts need the individuals for the whole
to exist regardless of their functions. Theories of autonomy start with the whole of
the individual “unity” as given and see that individual as “closed,” which is to say
without function within the whole. But as the definition of the whole has shifted so
functionality plays another role. Now functionality is the inter-operation of the
elements of the autopoietic network within the autopoietic unity. They work
together to produce the organization of the autonomous individual and thus each
element of the network has its function within that new whole. The emphasis on
which is more basic has changed but each viewpoint makes use of the other as its
complementary opposite within its own theoretical context. And this is exactly the
kind of trade-off that exists between noesis and noema in Husserl’s
phenomenology. Noesis and noema occur together in every cognition it is merely a
matter of emphasis which is seen as dominant in a particular cognition. Function
and Agency viewpoints arise from the bifurcation of the Catalyst viewpoint. They
arise together as complementary opposites which cannot exist in total independence
from the other. This is a fundamental transformation in the characteristics of
viewpoints. The Catalyst viewpoint did not need anything other than itself as a
means of relating to the independent isolated eventities. The Agent and Function
viewpoint see those same eventities through the veil of groupings and which ever
viewpoint you take on the eventity implies the other viewpoint as a possibility. The
548
question is whether the whole is the eventity itself or something bigger than the
eventity such as the group of eventities. If it is something bigger than an individual
eventity then you must apply the functional viewpoint and hold autonomy as
implicit. If it is the eventity itself that is the whole then you must apply the agent
viewpoint and hold functionality as implicit. The Firsts are transformed from
things without qualities to forms that have qualities. Those qualities are either
internal to them (as a network of functional nodes) or external to them (as the role
they play in some greater whole). Through groupings, sets with similar
distinctions, eventities are see as autonomous or as functional and the viewpoints
are generated out of the bifurcation Catalyst viewpoint that which project dependent
arising on the eventities themselves. This is to say we do not just see ourselves as
projecting all of this but also discovering the autonomy and intentions of the
eventities.
When we say that Seconds and Thirds are generated at this second stage in the
arising of methodological distinctions within our systems theory we need to be
more precise. We can say that when we had no order there were many distinctions
that arose which were not coordinated to imply any order. But when groupings of
eventities become possible then we can begin to compare one eventity to another in
terms of its characteristics. In this comparison of characteristics we can either take
the agency or functional viewpoint. If we take the functional viewpoint the most
important distinction will be between the characteristics of inputs and the
characteristics of outputs of individual eventities. If we take an agent viewpoint the
most important distinction will be between the autonomous self and the other. Thus
all distinctions may be distinguished between those that on the one hand relate to
inputs and outputs and on the other hand relate to self and other. Notice in one case
we focus on the relation between sets of eventities through their inputs and outputs.
In the other case we focus on the relation between a single eventity and all others.
Thus the viewpoints give us a meta-criteria for grouping characteristics that cause
us to focus above the eventity level looking for wholeness in sets of eventities or
cause us to focus at the eventity level looking for wholeness there and
differentiation between that eventity and all others. These meta-criteria produce
significances. Those significances are expressed as hierarchies of either agency or
functionality. You will notice that one gets more information from a hierarchy than
is possible to get from just a set of distinctions listed. A hierarchy is an
organization which displays significances. Thus even if we use the meta-criteria to
organize the eventities characteristics and figure out relations between them it is by
organizing these eventities into hierarchies that we make visible the significant
549
features of our organization. So Seconds and Thirds arise at this stage and they
allow us to identify relations and organize those relations into hierarchies that
display significances. Those relations may between agents or between functions.
Those hierarchies may be functional or nests of autonomous agents. And ultimately
we are interested in both kinds of relation and significance simultaneously although
we can only see one set at a time.
Each of the function and agent viewpoints support a hierarchy. A hierarchy is a

kind of partial ordering. So we can see a set of eventities as simultaneously
grouped from the functional and agent viewpoints. Normally we see it as grouped
by one on the background of the other. We can see our eventities as a hierarchy of
agents on the background of groupings of those agents in terms of functionality or
we can see our eventities as a hierarchy of functions on the background of
groupings of those functions in terms of agency. In systems we build these two
viewpoints are equally important and coming to the right set of groupings in a
design is an important goal of any system design.
Now we well extend out discussion by pointing to a connection that is seldom made
but is very important. This is the connection between Agency and Algebra and
between Functionality and Logic. The minimal logic has truths, operators (and/or/
not), and dualities. The minimal algebra has numbers, operators (existence/all/plus
{other operations are implied in plus}), and dualities. The dualities arise out of the
application of reversing operations or multiple operations that cause an reversal.
The point is that we can see logic as a truth function applied to functionality. We
can see algebra as an existence function applied to autonomous individuals. We
must have autonomous individuals to count. We must have characteristics
predicated in order to assign truth values. Predicated characteristics of individuals
in sets are functions. So our two most basic ways of manipulating things (algebra
and logic) arise at this second stage where we see individual autonomous eventities
to count or we see functional relations that arch over and include things into sets or
not. The interesting thing here is the connection between algebra and existence
operators such as all and there exists. These terms must be added to logic in order
to talk about individuals. But they are implied within algebra because when you
count something you assume that what is counted exists. When you wave your
hand over a set and say all these then you assume that those things so grouped
implicitly exist together. And this existence and truth are fundamentally related to
each other. Existence is related to reality. Truth, reality and identity are the three
basic meanings of Being in the Greek. And sure enough when we produce a formal
550
system we make use of identity as equality to make that system complete and
interconnected. Both algebra and logic use identity which is basically a duality
which is tautological. Tautological dualities are the basis of every formal system.
But this brings up the relation of Function to Truth and Agency to Reality. We see
clearly that when we assign functionality to something there is a question whether
that thing truly corresponds to that function. When we assign autonomy to
something there is the question whether that thing is really autonomous. Thus when
we declare existence or truth we are talking about the verification that the
autonomous thing really exists or the functional thing truly has that functionality.
Now what is interesting about all this is its connection to Godel’s proof. When
Godel proved that formal systems cannot be axiomized it was really a combination
of algebra and logic which was proved ungroundable. A simple algebraic system
by itself or a simple logical system is groundable. But it is the combination of the
two which cannot be axiomized. Now we know that axioms are a form of First seen
at stage one. So the indeterminateness that opens up for any formal system of a
certain complexity actually prevents us from connecting stage two formal systems
back to stage one axioms. Because between functionality connected to the world
via logic and autonomy connected to the world via algebra there opens up a realm
of indeterminacy. That indeterminacy has called a halt to Hilbert’s project of
axiomization of every formal system. But it also tells us that stage two is an
emergent level that is non-reducible to stage one. And this is an important
realization. You cannot look at the world through the agent and functional
viewpoints and then determine the truth of functional assignments and the reality of
existence claims for agents and then ground those back in the axioms that exist at
the level of stage one in which there is no order and no distance. When partial order
arises as groupings of independent isolated eventities and when the Catalyst
viewpoint bifurcates then a set of relations and significances appear that cannot be
put back into the bottle, the genie has escaped and set up formal relations that
cannot be reduced back to the axioms on which they initially depend. Our formal
systems have side-effects that are not predictable form the axioms and cannot be
reduced back to the axioms. Once this is seen then the importance of discriminating
the stages of the unfolding of methodological distinctions becomes clear. Basically
all the possibilities of formal systems relating to numbers or logical truths arise at
this level. And also the Pandora’s box opened by Godel’s proof arises as the proof
of the emergence of this systems level.
551
10. Stage Three
An interesting thing occurs at the next stage of the unfolding of methodological

distinctions. Whereas at the last stage the Catalyst viewpoint bifurcated into
Functional and Agent viewpoints while there was only one kind of ordering, partial
order, which was seen from those two co-dependent viewpoints; now the opposite is
going to occur. At this next stage there are two different methodological
distinctions that arise from the bifurcation of partial ordering that exist in relation to
the formal system. At this stage the linear order without distance appears as
opposite to partial order with distance. Neither of these kinds of order are quite the
full order of the real number line. Each is missing something crucial. Partial order
with distance is missing reversible operations that would give it linearity. Linearity
is missing distance that would tell it how far apart the linearly related elements are.
Thus from the point of view of stage four of the set of methodological distinctions
this stage is a defective intermediary between full ordering and minimal ordering.
However, in this study we will find that this level is of great interest and in fact in
many ways the other stages only exist to frame this stage. We will discover this
stage to be inherently structural as we discovered the previous stage to be inherently
formal.
One way to approach this level is to realize that the distinctions between input/
output and self/other that were produced as meta-criteria at the previous level can
be permuted at this level. This in effect means that we can get a view of the two
viewpoints that were separate at the last level as acting together at this level. There
are basically two ways to interrelate the two viewpoints. We can array their meta-
criteria against each other producing an N2 table or we can show their
interembedding within each other to produce the 2N combinations.
Table 21: State Machine
Self Other
Input prior state Event
Output post state Action
If we produce all the possible external relations between the meta-criteria of

function and agent viewpoints we generate the basic elements of the state machine.
On the other hand if we produce all possible interembeddings we get the essential
elements of the petri net. The pertri net and state machines are duals of each other.
552
Figure 99: Petri Net
Function Agent
Transition Map Place

both
Marker
neither
Now this is strange that when we permuted the meta-distinctions associated with
the viewpoints or we embed the viewpoints we get two different but dual
computational structures. Each of these computational structures exist as either a
set of rules in the case of the colored petri net or as a set of vectors as in the case of
the state machine. These rules or vectors are sets of statements that together
produce a continuing computational action. They are different from the axioms
which operate together as a static basis for the formal system. Here the statements
say what happens to output places when a marker of a certain color appears in an
input place. Or they say how the prior and post states of the state machine is related
to events and actions. In either cases they exist as a set of production rules that
define behavior. These sets of production rules combined with the formalisms of
the state machine or the petri net define a minimal level of algorithmic action or
computational behavior. But these are not turing machines. The state machine
must be evolved through push down automata and to finally arrive at turing
machine status when it is given a tape instead of a stack to operate upon. These are
of course related to Chomsky‘s levels of language. Each development of the state
machine that is necessary to turn it into a turing machine defines it as an acceptor or
producer of a language. We will argue that the turing machine is equivalent
conceptually to the full ordering at stage four. So the Chomsky hierarchy of
languages and the hierarchy of automata that are developed from the state machine
(and implicitly by its colored petri net dual) are our road from stage three to stage
four which means from partial computation to full computation.
But before we can walk this road it is necessary to look at how our Peircian-
Fullerian categories are transformed at this stage where we have two
methodological distinctions as a means of looking at the combination of the
functional and agency viewpoints in the guise of computational structures. At this
553
level arises the structural system as an extension of the formal system. Through
that yet another emergent level of methodological distinction is defined. Formal
systems allow proofs and are given strength by their closure. Structural systems are
not closed but have a great deal of explanatory power that Formal systems lack
because the structural system can cope with time and discontinuities across which
forms transform. Those transformations can be seen as sets of production rules that
describe the rearrangements of content and changes of forms. Those
transformations may be computed based on state machines and colored petri nets
depending on whether the functional or agent viewpoints are dominant. The
functional viewpoint prefers the state machine with its dominance of input and
output. The agent viewpoint prefers the petri net with its emphasis on place and the
existence of markers. But either one will do for constructing the minimal working
model of structural transformations.
In fact we can look to the kinds of minimal methods that appear between the
functional and agent viewpoints. Methods are bridges between viewpoints. They
will become very important to our discussion as things progress and we attempt to
derive the complete set of minimal methods. But here we can look just at the two
minimal methods that relate the function and agent viewpoints. Those minimal
methods are mapping and virtual layered machine. The mapping in this case is the
mapping between the functions and agents within a system. Such a mapping is
static synchronically but considered diachronically it changes over time as design of
the system progresses. The virtual layered machine is a set of instructions that work
together to solve a problem. Such a machine is composed of functions and may
have an associated state machine or petri net to determine the sequence of applying
the instructions of the machine. Or the instructions may just be a set of tools
offered to some outside entity to accomplish some task. The virtual layered
machine is a combination of functionality within an agent. The mapping is an
external look at the ideal relation between functions and agents. These two minimal
methods serve as bridges between the functional and agent viewpoints on a system.
But in them we can see a simple model of the structural system in which functional
changes are produced in time by the execution of the virtual layered machine.
These instructions that effect functional chances may be controlled by state
machines or petri nets or not. But in effect by producing the embodiment of
function within each agent they allow the mapping from all agents to all functions
to be produced. We can see the virtual layered machine as the set of operations
necessary to solve a problem that is a prerequisite for a genetic algorithm. As such
the agents may change their functional structure over time through crossover and
554
mutation becoming better or worse by some fitness measure. In that case the
mapping between function and agency is continually changing in a diachronic view.
In normal systems we try to keep the mapping as static as possible except for
degraded modes of operation. But the case of the genetic algorithm shows that
there can be systems where the diachronic change in the mapping from agent to
function must necessarily change.
The minimal methods only arise at stage three. In fact, an interesting point is that
the minimal methods all model themselves on the two dual methodological
distinctions. Thus mapping is like partial order with distance and virtual layered
machine is like linearity without distance. We can see this if we realize that the
mapping between agent and function hierarchies uses one hierarchy against the
other and that the hierarchies are a form of partial order but distance is introduced
when you count boundary crossings in the other hierarchy. The virtual layered
machines are essentially like structure charts and in them you know the order of
execution of modules but not the distance between them. You do not care what the
distance between them is but only the pure sequence of execution. So we see that
minimal methods that relate two viewpoints are duals of each other and that those
duals have the same mutual structure as the dual methodological distinctions that
arise at stage three. We see also that when the minimal methods arise the means of
embodying the functionality within the agents arises at the same time as the means
of verifying that there is a mapping between the functional hierarchy and the agent
hierarchy. At that precise moment our ability to model the structural system arises
and we introduce time as computation in which agents perform partial functions
which add together to solve some larger problem. This is not yet universal
computation but is a reduced form of computation that allows the structural system
to be modeled using minimal computational minimal methods. The computational
minimal methods (state machine and petri net) guide the operation of the minimal
virtual layered machine. This allows all the partial functions to solve a larger
grained problem and appear whole.
11. Stage Four
The final stage of the unfolding of methodological distinctions is where full order is
achieved. Full order is best represented by the real number line where you know
linear sequence as well as distance between any two points at the expense of
introducing infinities between each point on the line. At this stage we will show
that full ordering is equivalent to the turing machine. The infinities between each
555
point on the number line is equal to the infinity of the right side of the turing
machine tape. Also we will show that two more viewpoints arise at this stage
bringing as a further splitting of the Catalyst viewpoint. This now produces a
minimal system of viewpoints out of the primordial viewpoint. Through this
arising of the minimal system of viewpoints ten more minimal methods are
generated. The new viewpoints are reifications of spacetime into event and data by
the imposition of a computational perspective. The arising of the two new
viewpoints and their associated minimal methods actually send us back to attempt
to understand the set of minimal methods more fully. The minimal methods are
partial realizations of the turing machine within spacetime. This is a key point that
we will spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to prove before going on
to higher stages beyond the real number line and the turing machine. Because it is
this level that is equivalent to any robust general systems theory like that of George
Klir. All general system theories assume real number lines as a way of keeping
track of dynamics and turing machine computation as a way of modeling those
dynamics. Before we can go on to more specialized types of systems like the
dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive it is necessary to fully explore the level of
general systems theory in order to provide a sound basis for further specialization.
And we bring to this redefinition of the level of general systems theory an
understanding of its computational basis as we explore the relation between the
minimal methods and embodiment.
We could only really bring up embodiment when we reached this level because this
is the level where the ideal autonomous and functional structural systems actually
become embodied in spacetime. Spacetime is viewed as a fully ordered container.
Johannson did not mention this. But it is the full ordering of the container that is its
crucial attribute. And also this is the point were we first encounter spacetime which
for Johannson was the primary and only independent ontological category. From a
computational perspective we see this ontological category as events in time and
data as the computational equivalent of space. These are two new viewpoints
arising out of the Catalyst viewpoint. First it bifurcated into agent and function now
it has bifurcated again into four viewpoints which is the same as the interembedding
of the first two into spacetime. That interembedding is the realization of
embodiment. It is that embodiment we shall explore here. Now we will see that the
four viewpoints may be permuted and interembedded with each other to give new
meaning to the synergy of the Fourth. If we permute the four viewpoints we get
sixteen minimal methods. The twelve transitional minimal methods and four
viewpoint specific minimal methods. If we interembed the four viewpoints we get
556
all the possible combinations of those viewpoints. In both cases there are sixteen
possibilities. But with interembedding the lattice of possibilities ranges form all to
none of the viewpoints with all the possible combinations between. This
combination of all the four viewpoints into a single mega-viewpoint gives new
meaning to the Catalyst viewpoint which from which all of them sprung. It is the
mega-viewpoint that sees all spacetime. It is a Fourth, a synergy which combines
all the viewpoints and all of their different possible combinations. And as a
viewpoint on spacetime it sees positions in spacetime. These positions are the
Firsts that appear at this next stage. It turns out that in order to be still in spacetime
you must be moving. The minimal movement is a 4pi rotation which is called a
spinor. The mega-viewpoints sees these still points that move within spacetime.
Here at this stage relations and significances are again suppressed as they were at
stage one. This is because in order to see significances and relations you must have
a single viewpoint. Seeing different viewpoints simultaneously is really
impossible. The mega-viewpoint is another image of the holoid -- the ideal
interpenetrating whole -- and it is the holoid that is posited as confronting the whole
of spacetime. When spacetime is viewed as a frozen plenum which is impossible
for anything within it to see then all the positions within it are still. But we can
really only experience part of the mega-viewpoint and part of spacetime within
which we see still points as moving. So we reach a limit similar to the limit of stage
one. The container spacetime with cartesian coordinates projected on it within
which dynamic systems appear which can be modeled with only four viewpoints
throws us back inward in an attempt to understand the relation between the minimal
methods and the turing machine and in turn their relation to embodiment within the
matrix that underlies spacetime/timespace. But by reaching this limit we are able to
now turn back because now the matrix has split and the Catalyst viewpoint has
bifurcated again rasing us to a new level of complexity at which illusory continuity
is generated. The illusory continuity of the operating turing machine and of
spacetime is the product of ideation. When we look back into the interval between
stages one and four we see into the inner workings of ideation as it produces that
illusory continuity. We see that we are at a point of reversibility which throws us
back again into the interval in order to understand how the minimal system of
viewpoints works and how that minimal system of viewpoints is embodied within
spacetime and can have a view of positions in spacetime which are still from all
inertial frames though they are locally moving.
557
12. The Bifurcations of the Matrix.
In effect what this essay will attempt to engage in now is a derivation of the
minimal methods for software design. It has already been shown how the state
machine and petri net minimal methods were derived from the interaction of the
functional and agent viewpoints. Also the mapping and virtual layered machine
minimal methods appear as bridges between these two viewpoints. However, for
these minimal methods to arise the embedding into spacetime was not a prime
consideration. But by reaching the fourth stage we see that the bifurcation next
level of bifurcation of the Catalyst viewpoint appears along with the embedding in
spacetime so that a whole new set of minimal methods are generated as the bridges
between the full set of the minimal system of viewpoints. But also our approach
must be different now because we are essentially rebounding from the introduction
of infinity and the illusion of perfect continuity that appears at stage four. So we
must on the rebound begin again and consider the bifurcation of the matrix. The
matrix is the source of spacetime and timespace. These are two views of the matrix.
Spacetime is three dimensions of space minus the dimension of time. Timespace is
the Minkowoski version which concentrates on causality. It contains past minus
present minus past plus nowhere. These are two distinct ways of looking at the
matrix. Spacetime is reified into space and time which are viewed computationally
as data and event. Timespace is reified into reachability and effectivity and is
computationally reified into horizon and link. The combination of data and event is
the eventity. The combination of horizon and link is a region. The data entity
bifurcates into value and variable. The event bifurcates into duration and moment.
The horizon bifurcates into threshold and limit. The link bifurcates into correlation
and cause. Through these bifurcations we get a picture of an eventity within a
region which comprises a situation. A given eventity is composed of data and
events within space and time. The data is represented as a value of a variable. The
event is expressed as a duration composed of moments. The relation between
durations and moments is called by William James the specious present. There is
no infinitesimal moment. The minimum grain is the clock cycle. Eventities find
themselves in situations. In a given situation the eventity has an effective region.
The region is the distance that is reachable in a given amount of time within which
the eventity could be effective. Reachibility appears concretely as a horizon to the
eventity across which things manifest when they become reachable. Effectivity
appears concretely as links which allow the eventity to effect something else. A
horizon is composed of thresholds and limits. Thresholds are important points of
reachability within the limits of what is ultimately reachable. Links appear as either
558
correlations or causes. Causes are very strong correlations.

Figure 100: Bifurcation of the Matrix
value
Space data
variable
Spacetime
duration
Time event
moment
MATRIX
Reachable horizon threshold

limit
Timespace
correlation
Effectivity link cause
The bifurcation of the matrix makes available to us the concepts we need to

consider the relation between spacetime or timespace as a container and the
eventity. Basically the eventity is located in spacetime but it has its effective
relations with other eventities that it can reach through timespace regions. The
combination of location in time and space along with effectivity and reachability is
the way a situation is defined for a given eventity. To make this description
computational all we need to do is consider space to be memory and have it filled
with information values. The model that uses light to implement turing machine
tapes gives a direct transformation of the concept of container space as an
information container related to computation.
Now having broken down the matrix into subsidiary concepts through a progressive
bisection we can begin to explore the minimal methods related to event and data. It
turns out that there are two minimal methods relating the event viewpoint to the
data viewpoint on any software system. These two minimal methods again
subdivide into to sub-minimal methods each. These have been discussed at length
in my papers on Software Engineering Foundations. Basically there is the design
element flow sub-methods and the information flow sub-methods. These are
559
pictured in adjacent figures. The design element flow sub-methods have two
versions. One (t) sees state transitions for each design element between global
system states. The other (u) sees global system transitions between sets of design
element states. These two sub-methods define a minimal method that sees data
from the point of view of event which is to say data are seen as transitions between
states. The information flow network sub-methods also have two versions. One (s)
watches the changes in value of two variables in relation to each other. The other
(r) watches the values flow through a network of variables. The information flow
network method sees event from the point of view of data, i.e. event is changes in
data variables. Now these two minimal methods with their internal duality are the
ways data embedded in time and time is embedded in data. They are the way any
computational system is embedded in spacetime or timespace. And what is
interesting about that is each of the sub-methods use all the concepts that fall out of
the bifurcation of the matrix. Thus the information flow sub-method has some
aspect that corresponds to each of the leaf node concepts that falls out of the
bifurcation of the spacetime/timespace matrix. And this is true of each sub-method
in a completely different way. So we may say that each of the sub-methods (r, s, t,
& u) are complete embeddings in the matrix of their computational structures. And
beyond this we can say that the combinations of these sub-methods provide the
basis for embodiment of each of the minimal methods.
• state machine = s/t
• petri net = r/u
• dataflow = s/u
• darts1 = r/t
• worldline and scenario = s/r
• mapping and vitural layered machine = t/u
Thus even thought the minimal methods themselves are empirically selected as
bridges between viewpoints their computational embodiments can be derived from
the combination of sub-minimal methods bridging between event and data
viewpoints. This is a very important finding. The actual proof will not be presented
in the body of this paper due to its length but will be relegated to an appendix. But
once accepted it gives us a view of the minimal system of viewpoints that arises at
stage four that is much deeper than that we held before. Basically we see a lattice
that has the following features.
1.Design Approach for Real-Time Systems, See Hassan Gomma and Software Productivity Consortium (ADARTS)
560
• One Catalyst proto-viewpoint

• A minimal system of four viewpoints (AFDE)
• Six methods based on pairs of embodiments
• Four embodiments using all aspects of the matrix
• One Matrix
This lattice of concepts allows us to see how all the stages work together to produce
embodied computation. The six methods produced out of pairs of embodiments are
all partial turing machines. None of them contain the full continuity of the turing
machine with its infinite (in one direction) tape. But each of them give an
essentially different representation of computation that is necessary to picture some
aspect of the real-time software system. One point that is interesting is that we can
go beyond these methods which are all basically two dimensional and envisage
three dimensional macro-methods that are based on three embodiments minus one
embodiment. Thus each of these four possible three dimensional methods are
images of spacetime or timespace.
• r+s+t-u lacks macro-transitions and micro-states
• s+t+u-r lacks information network
• t+u+r-s lacks information flow
• u+r+s-t lacks micro-transitions and macro-states
These possible three dimensional methods are in fact the contexts of each of the
embodiments containing all the embodiments other than the one under focus and it
could be that it is impossible to actually construct such three dimensional methods
because of the exclusion which prevents you from being in more than one
viewpoint at a time when viewing a software design.
Now we are able to look at the minimal methods as partial structures of turing
machines and see them as combinations of computational embodiments. Anything
that can be computed by an effective procedure can be computed by a turing
machine. That computation is not abstract but is actually embodied in spacetime
via the four embodiments of data and event where data has two ways of viewing
event and vice versa. This is why software design minimal methods are effective.
They express the relations between computational embeddings. Each embedding
fully expresses the structure of the matrix. Two embeddings play those structures
of the matrix off each other in qualitatively different ways. Three embeddings
provide the context for any one other embedding.
561
13. General Systems Theory
We have been speaking in terms of software design minimal methods. However, as

has been show elsewhere1, that software engineering and general systems theory
are dual meta-disciplines that need each other. Robust general systems theory such
as George Klir’s must use software to simulate systems architectures. Software is
used in all disciplines to simulate and enable but it always appears as systems.
Pieces of software that are not systems out of context are useless patterns of ones
and zeros. So when we talk of software methods we are talking about the designs
for the embodiment of general systems models or some system model from a
specific discipline. Systems models using software animate conceptual structures
that would otherwise be static. So our stepping through the stages based on the
unfolding of methodological distinctions gives us a unique view of all possible
systems models. As George Klir says any given system model must make use of
backgrounds and attributes that are selected for a particular system under study.
These are converted into supports and variables which allow us to produce coherent
data streams. These data streams allow us to begin to analyze the system using the
epistemological framework developed by Klir which causes us to advance by two
horns toward infinity as we produce higher and higher level meta-models and
structural systems or mixtures of these. Every concrete approach to a system must
be based on the methodological distinctions and they fundamentally effect our view
of the systems we study. By stepping through the stages of unfolding of the
methodological distinctions we have seen that when we reach full ordering we also
introduce the infinity. At the same point we attain full computational strength and a
continuous spacetime within which we can pinpoint the different parts of the system
and how they are moving. If we consider the system causally from the point of
view of timespace we get fully linked and reachable regions that encompass the
system and allow all parts to effect all other parts producing correlated and causal
phenomena based on the limits and thresholds within the system.
So we can take a more global view and say that every system can be seen as
stepping through the stages of methodological distinctions unfolding until we reach
the point where we can give a robust model of it within a continuous container of
spacetime, based on linked eventities with each others mutual horizons, and which
can be effectively computed using a turing machine representation to imitate its
dynamics. But even though we think of all systems as being within a continuous
1.Klir paper
562
spacetime container and effectively linked within mutual horizons this is not always
the case. In fact there can be systems based on restricted methodological
distinctions that do not exist in fully ordered spaces. For our systems theory to be
complete we must take into account these other possibilities. And in fact by taking
them into account we provide an account of the development of our systems theory
out of its fundamental roots by stepping through each stage at a time and
constituting out systems theory as it genetically unfolds with the unfolding of the
methodological distinctions.
563
Figure 101:
Catalyst
Agent Function
Event Data
virtual layered machine
worldline and scenario

state machine
mapping and
petri net
dataflow
darts
s-u u-r t-r t-u s-t r-s
s t
r u
correlation
boundary
duration
variable
moment
cause
value
limit
Data Event HorizonLink
Spacetime Timespace
MATRIX
The tendency is to look at recursively enumerable degrees that lie above the level
564
where the Turing machine comes into existence. Soare has done this and has
developed methods for specifying the degrees of computability very exactly. We
can see this as an exploration of the space above the threshold of computability
where the turing machine and the container spacetime/timespace come into
existence. It assumes the continuum of computability and the continuum of real
numbers based on the interjection of infinity on the turing machine tape or in the
articulation of dimensions. In this study we take a different route which sees the
arising of computability and of methodologically distinguished measures as
occurring by a series of stages. In these stages we see the order of what can be
measured increasing step by step up to the emergence of the fully ordered real
number line. But also in these stages we see the substructure of the turing machine
composed step by step. This substructure is composed of minimal methods
associated directly with embeddings by which they are manifested computationally.
Thus we approach the threshold of computability and of measures of spacetime/
timespace and rebound from it. We rebound because the Catalyst viewpoint is
progressively bifurcating. First it produces two viewpoints and one methodological
distinction, then it produces two methodological distinctions that are the basis for
all minimal methods, and finally it produces two more viewpoints and another
methodological distinction. At this final stage all of the rest of the methodological
distinctions become possibilities and there appears a minimal system of viewpoints
which gives us a complete picture of the lattice of embedding by which the
methodological distinctions interface with the matrix of spacetime/timespace. Once
this complete structure is manifest we move into a realm in which we can extend
out computation to various degrees within the spacetime container and by
reductions of computing devices to the turing machine. The structure is the basis
for any general systems theory that is founded on the computational simulation of
dynamic systems. Dynamic systems appear as located in container spacetime and
the turing machine computes the dynamics. The architecture of systems such as
Klir studies becomes the architecture of simulations of systems which is grounded
in their data representations. Klir’s epistemological lattice gives an articulation for
our general computational simulation of any physically realizable system. But our
focus is not on the ability to simulate any possible dynamic system. We take it for
granted that at stage four where turing computation and container spacetime arises
that both meta-disciplines of General Systems Theory and Software Engineering
become effective. We are more interested in exploring the substructure below this
threshold of illusory continuity. We have already shown that within this
substructure a minimal system of viewpoints is constituted and that a set of minimal
methods necessary for defining any dynamic system is generated as partialities of
565
turing machine. We have shone that each of these minimal methods are based on a
computational embodiment that connects it to all the aspects of spacetime/
timespace. Each minimal method is comprised of two interacting embodiments
which each in a different way expresses a complete embodiment of spacetime/
timespace. All the interacting embodiments together form the basis of the turing
machine. Three embodiments opens up the possibility of three dimensional
representations of real-time systems, something that has not yet been defined but
may be useful for modelling real-time systems in a new generation of design tools
that are based on virtual reality techniques. By backing away from the threshold
where illusory continuity arises in our series of stages we have been able to derive
the minimal methods from the combinations of the four embodiments. And this
also frees us up to move in a different direction. We shall consider the lattice that
produces the illusory continuity of the turing machine and container spacetime as a
point of departure to explore the possibility of defining specialized systems
theories. The lattice has allowed us to define a general systems theory built up in
stages of the unfolding of the methodological distinctions. That general systems
theory once defined can be used to model the architecture of any system realized in
spacetime/timespace. But the question that will arise soon is whether we can go on
to define more specialized theories of systems that give us rigorous definitions of
the dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive systems. For now we are still exploring
the general systems theory that has now been given rigorous formulation. That
formulation says that the way we measure systems is fundamental. Different kinds
of systems appear phenomenologically as we introduce each methodological
distinction. These methodological distinctions based on order and distance of
eventities do not say anything about the nature of the eventities that combine to
show different degrees of distance and order. This is a strictly non-essentialist
theory that merely says that if you are going to measure a system there are stages of
the constitution of measurement and that these stages in the end give you turing
machine computability and continuous spacetime/timespace. But on the way to that
most general kind vantage point onto systems that are simulatable and are realized
in spacetime/timespace there are these very specific stages which tell us a great deal
about he substructure of ideation and make our systems theory more general still.
Instead of our systems theory being merely all possible systems architectures and
merely mentioning the difference between methodological distinctions in passing as
Klir does, we take a genetic view of the constitution of systems as we see them
unfold phenomenologically from the first stage of no order no distance on to full
ordering with complete ordering and distance. We can do this because we have
applied the Perician-Fullerian categories which gave us a framework for
566
considering how this unfolding of methodological distinctions works and how it is

linked to the unfolding of viewpoints. These viewpoints are the basic supports that
appear as backgrounds for the measure of a real-time system. The minimal methods
are the basis for relating design elements to these background supports. They allow
us partial views of the design of the real-time system or the dynamic system which
we re simulating. They are truly partial machines which express requirements or
what Deleuze and Guattari call desiring machines. These desiring machines in
Deleuze and Guattari’s theory are related to the socius or the social nexus. The
individual is illusory and is merely a collection of desiring machines. Here we see
the key point which is that turing computability and the continuity of spacetime/
timespace is an illusion like the illusion of subjectivity. We need to back away
from that illusion and explore the sub-structure of that illusion. In that substructure
we see desiring machines clustered together and interacting to form a socius and in
which all individuals as subjects, even as bodily wholes are illusory constructions.
What we want to do is show that connection to the socius. The socius is above the
level of the illusory individual but we need not pass through that level in order to
produce it. It is as if instead that the level of illusory continuity was constituted
from either side. It is constituted by the partial objects or desiring machines from
one direction and it is constituted by the social layer from the other direction. These
two distinctly different sources interact to produce the illusion of the individual
subject suspended in the illusory continuity of the designated as real world. And
this is important because that illusory continuity is exactly what constitutes our
involvement in the world. So our general systems theory is also a theory of
worlding worlds to the extent that it produces the illusory continuity that allows us
to project the world as a unified illusion. The projection comes from two sources.
One is below the level of the individual who is computable in spacetime/timespace
and one is above the level of the individual at the level of emergence of the social.
Now if we continue to construct the fifth through seventh stages to account for the
dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special systems we are not necessarily
thinking foundationally as if this unfolding must constitute each stage emergently
out of the last. In fact we consider that the whole lattice can be turned on end so
that we could begin by looking at the social first and successively deriving the
lower level stages. In fact we submit that the social is fundamental and that
working from both ends of our lattice we constituent the illusory continuity of the
computable individual within spacetime/timespace. This allows us to see that our
work of providing an ontological substrate for the social in terms of tendencies in
the prior essay was not for nought. We have seen that the functional viewpoint is
synonymous with intentionality and that it is intertwined with the issue of autonomy
567
as seen form the agent viewpoint. And sure enough it was intentionality that was
give its own categorical status by Johannson. Now we see that the social is based
on the category also posited by Johannson of tendency. These two are brought
together by vector addition as a means of resolving tendencies into final intentions.
But what is key is that the constitution of the individual which is taken by Deleuze
and Guattari as illusory is based on two grounds. It is based on the ground of the
partial objects or desiring machines and it is based on the ground of the socius. The
partial objects and desiring machines are constituted in stages one thorough three of
the unfolding of the methodological distinctions. They are equivalent to our partial
turing machines which are expressed as embodied minimal methods. The other
horn of constitution of the illusory individual will be given in stages seven thorough
five which are based on the socius and that is grounded in the Johannson category
of the tendency. The key question is where do desiring machines get their desire.
Desiring machines combine intention with tendencies to produce the nodes of
autopoietic networks of partial machines. The result is the illusion of a unified
individual. But the lack of real unity of that individual is a sign of the operation
within it of the void -- an essential rift or a wound that can never be healed.
Figure 102:
Stage Two
functional and agent viewpoints
partial order
Stage One Stage Three
Catalyst viewpoint minimal methods
isolated independent eventities partial order + distance
no order, no distance linear order
Stage Four
full order
turing machine
real spacetime
VOID data and event viewpoints
INDIVIDUAL
SUBJECTIVITY
illusory continuity
Stage Seven Stage Five

reflexive system dissipative system
Stage Six
autopoietic system
Now we need to explore just a little bit the connection between the minimal system
of viewpoints and the Catalyst proto-viewpoint. We return for a moment to recall
Johannson’s definition of the temporal gestalt and the temporal gestalt causa sui.
We remember that the temporal gestalt was a combination of a temporally inclusive
quality with an temporally exclusive quality. Now we notice right away that the
Catalyst viewpoint is temporally exclusive and the other viewpoints are temporally
inclusive so that each relation between the Catalyst viewpoint and the members of
the minimal system of viewpoints is a temporal gestalt. A temporal gestalt causa
sui is the relation between two temporal gestalts. Thus between the viewpoints and
568
the Catalyst proto-viewpoints there are six temporal gestalts causa sui defined.
These termporal gestalts causa sui appear as self starting qualities that when one
temporal thing occurs another spontaneously is jump started. This self-jump
starting when given in a ring of temporal gestalts causa sui forms a hyper cycle.
The hyper-cycle is an image of the autopoietic system. It catalyzes itself. Thus the
Catalyst viewpoint realizes itself in a ring of temporal gestalts that are all mutually
dependent. It is an image of dependent arising were the whole ring must arise
together and is bound together by mutual causal relations. Such a hyper-cyclical
ring is the fundamental basis for constructing higher level stages that will define the
dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive system. But notice to realize that description
we are not moving out toward the horizon of computability and continuity but
inward, into the sub-structure of the lattice that connects the matrix with the
Catalyst viewpoint. We see that it is temporal gestalts causa sui that are the basis of
this new direction along which we can define more specialized systems. By
defining the six temporal gestalts causa sui we see that these line up over against the
six embodiments of minimal methods. We say now that the minimal methods
cannot be reduced to the combinations of embodiments and that they each embody
a synthesis that is not fully captured by their embodiments. This synthesis over and
above the embodiments that is the essence of the minimal methods is expressed by
the six temporal gestalts causa sui. They form an interlocking network of partial
realizations that has both a simple and a bodily aspect. The simple aspect is the
temporal gestalt causa sui. The bodily aspect is the combinations of embodiments
that give rise to the minimal methods. It is really the combination of these two
ways of defining the six two-way methodological bridges that give us the five
dimensional sextahedron structure of the second order autopoietic ring. The first
order autopoietic ring is the pentahedron in four dimensional space. The five
dimensional equivalent of the tetrahedron has a lattice form which is 1-6-15-20-15-
6-1. This lattice can be read either direction laying on an interpretation of point,
line, plane face, solid, hyper-solid. Thus this figure has fifteen solids (tetrahedrons)
and six hyper-solids (pentahedrons). The two sixes are set equal to the temporal
gestalts causa sui and the six embodiments upon which the minimal methods are
based. The twenty is the same as the number of nodes in the five tetrahedrons of the
pentahedron. So we see here that the nodes of the pentahedral autopoietic ring
become the faces of the sextahedral geometrical form. These are equivalent to the
twenty sources beyond mirroring and reversibility of the I Ching or the twenty
Mayan day names. They are equivalent to the combinations of the five hsing and
the four elements. The six simples of the temporal gestalt causa sui and the bodies
of the six embodiments do not have a simple pattern of combination but from a
569
higher order geometric lattice that defines the twenty source forms.They are the
nodal points at which the five celestial causes interact with the four terrestrial
receptivities. They are the points at which the yin in the yang interact with the yang
in the yin. The celestial causes (five hsing) interact with the four elements through
which the Li of all things is expressed. Cosmologically this is the interaction of the
planets with the stars.
Figure 103:
Catalyst
exclusive TG Causa Sui
ca-cf
ca-ce
ca-cd
cd-cf
cd-ce
cd-cf
TG TG
Agent Function
inclusive inclusive
TG
TG
Data Event
inclusive inclusive
minimal
methods
pairs of
embodiments
produce
minimal methods
s t
r u
EMBODIMENTS
You might feel as if we have just fallen off a cliff into astrology and other
undesirable pseudo-sciences. However, what we are getting at there is very deep
and needs a special language to speak of it. It turns out that many ancient cultures
had such a language and it was misunderstood and turned into the epitome of
charlatanry by the rise of Western science. But what we are talking about is very
simple. Johannson has produced a way of talking about Temporal Gestalts Causa
570
Sui which are basically combinations of exclusive and inclusive temporal qualities
which are then combined again to give us a view of the jump start mechanism of
hyper-cycles. Now we are merely taking the same kind of concept taken a bit
further. We already know that there is yang (primary causation), yin in yang
(secondary causation of invisible causes), yang in yin (Li), and yin (Chi). When
Johannson posits the possibility of temporal gestalts causa sui he has opened up the
door to defining even higher level relations between temporal gestalts causa sui.
We have in fact happened across one of these higher level relations where we have
a set of temporal gestalts causa sui (six to be exact) interacting with a set of six pairs
of embodiments. In order to put this into a lattice structure we have to go down
Pascal’s triangle till we reach the lattice that embodies the sextahedron in five
dimensional space. That lattice has twenty nodes between the two sixes mediated
by fifteen in both directions. The twenty can be interpreted geometrically as
surfaces starting from either end of the lattice. It turns out if we look back down at
the next lower line in Pascals triangle we see the lattice for the pentahedron in four
dimensional space. That pentahedron has five tetrahedrons and thus rotated out of
the fourth dimension there would be twenty separate points that are represented by
five reused. What are twenty points in four dimensions are now twenty surfaces in
five dimensional space. These surfaces represent the interaction between celestial
causes and embodiments. There are five celestial causes called Hsing and
traditionally four embodiments earth/air/fire/water. The twenty interactional nodes
appear as the point of connection between the six Temporal Gestalts causa sui and
the six embodiments. These are the next levels deeper into the tetrahedral lattice
produced by the unfolding of the methodological distinctions that lead to the arising
of the minimal system of viewpoints and their embodiment in the lattice. We can
see by this that there is a different direction to go besides out into the illusory
continuity of container space and computability. We can follow Pascal’s triangle
deeper and see the various lattices produce an infinite series of interpenetrating
structures rolled up within the minimal system of viewpoints embodied in the
matrix.
However, this new direction following Pascal’s triangle to deeper and deeper levels
of interpenetrating structures rather than out into the realm of illusory continuity,
must be approached carefully. Otherwise we might merely fall off into the mystical
without seeing the point of looking at things in this way. These concepts taken
from Chinese and Islamic sciences are actually very sophisticated but expressed in a
deceptively simple language. We need the right line of approach to see things from
a vantage point that combines the insights of the East with those of the West in a
571
way that makes sense to everyone. Therefore, we will return to our elaboration of
the emergent stages and build step by step the remainder of our stages. Hopefully
we will be able to produce a framework that will make it possible to assimilate these
concepts. But here we merely want to show that there is an alternative to building
out into the illusory continuity produced by computation and the container space.
Instead we can go deeper into the embodied minimal system of viewpoints and we
can see how that is done because we can produce the six temporal gestalts causa sui
and the six embodied minimal methods and we can see that these participate in a
higher dimensional lattice that defines all the possibilities of their interrelation. The
nodes of interaction that appear define the twenty source forms that govern the
interaction of the five hsing with the four elements. The five hsing are the
fundamental yang transformations. The four elements are the fundamental yin
receptivities. The twenty surfaces of interaction give us all the possible logical
kinds of interaction of heaven and earth. This is basically the internal structure of
interaction of secondary celestial or unseen causes with the Li. It is the interaction
of the yin in the yang with the yang in the yin. Chinese and Islamic science
traditionally dealt with these subtle interactions rather than gross physical tertiary
causes that Western science works with. The interaction of secondary invisible
causes and the fundamental pattern expressed in the Chi as Li. The Li can only be
manifest because of the receptivities in the chi that allows order to be embodied.
The Li is an ordering that rises up within the flows of the Chi. That ordering is the
reflection of secondary celestial causes interacting with the yin Chi. As we explore
this realm more fully we realize that we have opened up the possibility of
establishing a common basis for the Western science of special systems (i.e.
dissipative, living, reflexive) and the Chinese and Islamic sciences that have for
centuries been concerned with subtle energies and diagnosis of self-steering
dynamic systems. However dealing with higher level concepts than the temporal
gestalt causa sui is difficult and must be approached with caution in order to get the
right sense of it and this can only really be done in the context of a definition of the
specializations of general systems theory that allow rigorous definition of the
dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems.
572
Figure 104:
dimension 1 source
0 1-1 point
1 1-2-1 line
2 1-3-3-1 triangle
3 1-4-6-4-1 tetrahedron
4 1-5-10-10-5-1 pentahedron
5 1-6-15-20-15-6-1 sextahedron
However, so as not to leave the reader hanging we let us lay out the progression
down into the infinite regress of Pascal’s triangle once again. We have established
the tetrahedron of fundamental viewpoints on every real-time system. We have also
established the minimal system of embodiments. It turns out that the embodiments
can be combined six ways to give the embodiments of the minimal methods of
software design or real-time system modeling. It also turns out that we can define
six temporal gestalts causa sui by considering the relations between the Catalyst
proto-viewpoint and the minimal system of viewpoints. Thus we have two sets of
sixes one composed of simples and the other composed of embodiments. We posit
that these are not just directly related but combine through the lattice of the
sextahedron in five dimensional space. But this leads us to question the relation of
the sextahedron to the tetrahedron of viewpoints or of embodiments. We see that
there is another figure between these two extremes which is in fact very important
because it defines the structure of the autopoietic ring. That is the pentahedron of
four dimensional space. The pentahedron gives the structure of the minimal
autopoietic network. An autopoietic network is composed minimally of five
minimal systems or phases. It is composed by considering the Catalyst viewpoint
to be on the same par with the other viewpoints. If we substitute the Catalyst
viewpoint for each of the others in turn we get the five phases. So the viewpoints
stand opposite the phases where the viewpoints are mixed. In this way the
pentahedron sets up a relation between the celestial causes (Hsing) and the
terrestrial receptivities (elements). The pentahedron embodies this fundamental
relation generating twenty archetypal kind of interaction. These twenty kinds of
interaction appear as surfaces in the sextahedron. The sextahedron represents the
six ways the interaction between heaven and earth can be embodied. Here instead
of static viewpoints we have temporal gestalts causa sui as the celestial element.
Instead of receptivities we have the six embodiments. The same twenty basic kinds
of interaction appear to mediate the relation between the six embodiments and the
six temporal gestalts causa sui.The twenty kinds of interactions appear as surfaces
rather than points. Each surface connects three temporal gestalts causa sui. Each
573
surface may act as the interface between the point that juts out into the fifth
dimension and one of the pentahedrons that are four dimensional shadows of the
sextahedron. The phases of the sextahedron are four dimensional. They are
separated from each other by the temporal gestalts causa sui. The six embodiments
and the six temporal gestalts causa sui interact in a way that sets the pentahedral
relations between heaven and earth in motion.
574
Figure 105:
point or pentahedron
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 6
TGCS TGCS TGCS TGCS TGCS TGCS
ca-cf ca-ce ca-cd cd-cf cd-ce ce-cf
line or solid
15
interaction surfaces
20
line or solid
15
point or pentahedron
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
s-t r-u s-u r-t s-r t-u
state petri data darts world VLM 6
machine net flow line mapping
scenario
575
Figure 106:
tetrahedron
pentahedron
sextahedron
576
Figure 107: The six pentahedrons in a sextahedron
Jutting out into

fifth dimensional
space in six directions
577
Figure 108: Twenty Interaction Surfaces.
14. Stage Five
Enough wildness for the moment. Now we return to our construction of the stages.
But since we have run out of methodological distinctions the question comes how
do we extend our four basic stages any further. The key is to change gears and
consider another basic feature of our ordering capability that has come to light with
the advent of the real number system. Now we move from kinds of measures to
considering more complex orders of real numbers. These are defined by the kinds
of algebras that can exist to relate different number systems. Now we know that
algebra arose with the agent viewpoint. And we also know that logic was its
opposite. Thus if we concentrate on algebras now we should expect a similar
emphasis on logic in some form or another. We know we can have a definition of a
normal algebra with real numbers. We can also extend logic to fuzzy logics to
produce a continuum between true and false. So just as real numbers allow us to
track things in the real world so to fuzzy logic allows us to get even closer to our use
of judgement. In fact, within the real continuum we can see that determinate,
stochastic, fuzzy and chaotic numbers can be applied. These kinds of numbers also
578
relate to different possible kinds of automata as shown by Watanabe. So we have a

full range of different kinds of modeling which relates to our different modalities of
Being. Thus we have effectively a different kind of number for each human
modality for relating to the world.
But there are different kinds of algebra and here we will begin dealing with more
esoteric algebras as a means of extending our lattice of methodological distinctions.
It turns out that beyond real algebra there is complex algebra, hyper-complex and
hyper-hyper complex algebras. Each of these algebras are progressively weaker.
But they each mark an specific threshold of complexity beyond the threshold of
illusory continuity. We will step out through these thresholds of complexity
defined by hyper algebras one at a time and attempt to see their importance.
The first stage beyond the threshold of illusory continuity is the complex numbers
and their algebra that allows us to define the square root of negative one. This
allows us to solve some equations that otherwise would remain insoluble. But it
does more because there are many natural phenomena that are aligned in some way
with complex numbers like electricity for example. The complex numbers describe
the rotations in four dimensional space. Thus by moving from the real numbers to
the complex numbers we are allowed relations that cannot happen in normal three
dimensional space. Four dimensional rotations allow something to rotate into its
enantiomorph (mirror image) which is not possible in three dimensional rotations.
Now this threshold of complexity is definitely beyond the real numbers but this is
achieved by introducing a fourth dimension within which the algebra operates by
keeping the real numbers and the complex numbers linked but separate. We link
this threshold of complexity to the dissipative system and what will be called the
openly closed system. The dissipative system is either a catastrophe in which
entropy pours into a system or a system in which entropy pours out of a system. In
the latter case order appears as if from nowhere. This order from nowhere is the
sigh of an unseen celestial cause. It is as if there were a four dimensional pathway
into the system from the inside without breaking any of its boundaries. Thus the
system is open to the introduction of order from nowhere but closed as the
dissipative boundary creates a barrier through the surge of entropy projected
outward into the environment. The dissipative system establishes its boundary by
pouring entropy into its environment at a rate similar to the rate by which it
introduces order from nowhere internally. The dissipative system is dependent on
this balance to maintain its existence. The dissipative system is by definition out of
579
balance. It is a dynamic balance which is constantly falling ahead of itself and

catching up with itself as ordering produces disordering.
The dissipative system’s boundary is like a twist in a mobius strip. That twist is
well defined by the structure of the complex number system. complex numbers at a
particular point yield real numbers again. That point were real numbers are yielded
when you combine complex numbers is a twist in four dimensional space. It is that
twist that allows the boundary of the dissipative system to exist. This is because
order is being thrown out into the environment and that by some unknown
mechanism allows order to be pulled in from four dimensional nowhere. The
boundary of the dissipative system is a four dimensional boundary not merely a
three dimensional boundary. This is what distinguishes it and makes it a special
kind of system within the panoply of all possible systems.
At this stage we introduce the idea that a tetrahedral system can have four different
guises: tetrahedron, mobius strip, knot, and torus. Each of these represent 720
degrees of angular movement which is 4pi. Four pi is the minimal necessary
movement to appear to be standing still in spacetime. Each of the different
geometric appearances of the minimal system represents a different kind of
receptivity in the Yin sensible earth.
15. Stage Six
The next stage is defined by the Hamiltonians or the Quarternions. These are hyper
complex numbers. Hamiltion put up a plaque where he discovered them while on a
walk by a canal. They are three complex numbers all interrelated like the complex
numbers only more complexly infolded into each other. Thus instead of two
independent kinds of numbers there are four (x, i, j, k). You get the Quarternions by
doubling the complex numbers. The algebra of the Quarternions is weaker than that
of the complex numbers. They also have their uses but are less useful than the
complex numbers. But what we really see in the quarternion numbers is a double
twist which turns the mobius strip into the Klienian bottle. Here the dissipative
system becomes closed and we have an autopoietic system. I posit that it is this
threshold of complexity that defines the autopoietic systems internal structure.
Here the dissipative waterfall like those of Escher feed themselves and produce
perpetual motion machines. The autopoietic system is a perpetual motion machine
constructed by adding two opposite four dimensional twists to each other. This
explains a lot of things about the autopoietic system like why it must pop into
580
existence and pop out of existence. It also explains how it could produce itself. It
merely twists back on itself through four dimensional space. And since the fourth
dimension can be seen as time the self-production of the autopoietic system is
merely its rotation through time.
At this stage we introduce the concept that the pentahedron itself has four guises
analogous to the guise of the tetrahedron. Its main guise of interest is that it
contains at its core a Kleinian bottle that is two mobius strips intertwined. These
intertwined mobius strips are inscribed on the surface of the pentahedron as its
surfaces connect to form these two mobius strips. It also has images as the thirty
two pentagrams corresponding to the interference pattern of the knot. The
pentahedral structure itself corresponding to the tetrahedron. And finally five
groups of twenty elements. There are only five kinds of groups of twenty elements.
So the twenty basic interactions are represented as an interlocking group structure.
The quality of those basic twenty interactions are represented by the thirty two
pentagrams. Thirty two qualities in twenty places. The fact that the pentahedron
contains a Kleinian bottle is very significant because the Kleinian bottle is the
image of the autopoietic system turning in on itself in its self grounding motion.
16. Stage Seven
The last stage of the specialization of general systems theory is the positing of the
dissipative, autopoietic reflexive system as being related to Cayley Algebras. These
algebras involve eight independent kinds of numbers (x, i, j, k, E, I, J, K) and is
again produced by doubling of the Quarternions. They are sometimes called the
Octanion numbers. It is a still weaker algebra than the Quarternions. But it
perfectly defines reflexivity because the reflexive system is like a Klienian bottle
looking at its own reflexion. It allows the Klienian bottle to turn inside out by
rotating through itself. Thus the closed system can see itself and become reflexive.
The rotation of the Kleinian bottle through itself to turn inside out appears as the
reflexive process. This process is essentially social and we can see the marriage of
two closed systems as the basis of the definition of sociality. The Cayley structure
allows us to avoid solipsism. The inside of one closed system becomes the outside
of the other and vice versa. Thus the marriage harmony is based on this possibility
that is the basis of all social relationships. When the child enters Lacan’s mirror
stage he is trapped in the reflection between the two closed systems rotating through
each other. They are both one and different at the same time. The Cayley algebras
give a precise definition to the reflexive level as a threshold of complexity. This
581
level of system specialization is inherently social.

17. Back to the Void
We notice that as we progressed we combined more and more real like numbering
systems together. We gave them different names like i, j, k etc. but these were only
symbols that allowed us to differentiate these different numbering systems as we
used them together. Basically in each case we are dealing with the real numbering
system in different incarnations that we have taught to work together. Structurally
there are only three levels above there real numbers that we can construct these
alternative algebras. But what we notice is that the separation between the different
incarnations are emptiness. There are stark lacunae separating these different
numbering systems from each other. Those lacunae are the void creeping back in
between the different illusory continua. We have continuity but as we go to higher
and higher algebras that continuity is controlled by a higher order set of imperatives
that produce radical discontinuities between numbering systems. Those
discontinuities between continuities return us to the void. That is the same void that
we emerged from with the Catalyst viewpoint and the isolated independent entities.
18. Matrix Logic
We have now laid out a progression of stages based on algebra which allows us to
define very precisely the threshold of complexity where the dissipative, autopoietic
and reflexive systems appear. But we need to understand that these thresholds are
not just defined in algebraic terms but may also be defined in terms of logic. Thus
we will start over in a sense showing the logical connections to the same series of
stages. For this we appeal to August Stearn’s Matrix logic to give us a basis for
constructing these higher logical levels. It is not possible to review all of Matrix
logic here but we will just indicate the connections so that we can go on to see the
broader implications of this construction. Stern develops a new basis for logic by
combining it with matrix algebra. He basically uses the truth tables of logic to
generate matrix logic operators that work upon truth vectors. He expands the
number of truth values beyond true and false to cover neither true nor false and both
true and false. By doing this and by eliminating what he calls forbidden operations
he composes a meta-level logic which is a very significant advance on the
traditional logic. We posit that there are three stages in the composition of this new
logic which Stern himself develops. There is the vector addition of truth vectors.
The vector addition of the four truth values corresponds to the dissipative system.
At the level of the autopoietic system is the matrix logic operators which operate
582
not only on truth vectors but also on each other. The autopoietic system is modeled
via what Stern calls the Autoproducts:
Another crucial reason why high-level intelligence resists formalization is related to
the autonomous character for intelligent operations. In phenomenological terms
this autonomous capability allows an intelligent system to postpone direct responses
to stimuli from the environment and to carry out necessary evaluations prior to
actions. This is the essential aspect of high-level intelligence which distinguishes it
from ordinary data processing, information processing, and knowledge processing.
Taking into account that the autonomous capability in mathematical terms implies a
closed loop topology, one may reasonably incline to associate high-level
intelligence with closed loop structures. Corresponding closed logic structures can
be constructed from linear matrix logic expressions by connecting the last ket vector
of an expression with its first bra vector. The proper writing of an expression in
closed logic thus will require at least two dimensional representations, with the
actual expression taking the form of a circular string or autoproduct consisting of a
finite number of bilinear products.1
Matrix logic has a direct representation of autopoietic rings. It also congeals into a
hyper logic in which four Matrix logic operators form a single Hyper logic operator.
This level of hyper-logic is a structure at the same level of complexity as the
reflexive autopoietic system. Thus we have with Matrix logic and its hyper-logic
extension a rigorous definition of each of the stages described before algebraically
from a logical perspective.
Now we cannot here go into all the implications of the relations between matrix
logic and hyper algebras except to note that matrix logics are equally mathematical
as logical and the matrix operations can be used with complex and hyper-complex
numbers as well as real numbers so that there is a blending of logic and
mathematics that is possible through the introduction of matrix logic and hyper
algebras.
A central point with the introduction of vectors and matrices is that it agrees with
Johannson’s vision of the importance of vectors and his use of vector addition as a
paradigm for understanding the relation between the category of intention and the
category of tendency. Here we have merely recognized that vectors are a subset of
the matrix and that matrices can be used to manipulate either logic or numerical
values thus in matrix logic and higher algebra there is a coming together of the two
horns or our formalist dilemma that became split off from each together with the
1.Matrix Logic August Stearn page 207
583
arising of function and agent perspectives. This synthesis comes back together with
the arising of the concept of the social machine.
Figure 109:
STAGE ONE Catalyst

no order, no distance
partial order
LOGIC ALGEBRA
STAGE TWO FunctionAgent
partial
order minimal methods linear
STAGE THREE
partial machines order
plus
distance
STAGE FOUR
Data Event
turing machine
Illusory continuity
full order
STAGE FIVE vector addition

Complex Algebra
of four truth values
Dissipative
Quarternion
STAGE SIX Matrix Logic
Clifford Algebra
Autopoietic
Octanion
Hyper-Matrix
Cayley Algebra
SAGE SEVEN Logic
Reflexive
SOCIAL
584
19. Social Machines and Computational Sociology
Although our presentation of stages five through seven have been sketchy we are
now in a position to take a global view of what the definition of this final
progression of stages has allowed us to achieve. Here we are concerned with
opening up new vistas not with showing all the results that might flow from the
exploration of these vistas. We have outlined a radically different way of looking at
general systems theory that puts it in a computational perspective. Now we have
defined some very definite levels of complexity beyond general systems theory
which are associated with specialized kinds of systems. The first of these is the
dissipative system or what has been called here the openly closed system. In such a
system there is either disorder from everywhere or order flowing in from nowhere.
This appearance of nowhere alerts us that there are unseen causes at work in such a
system that cannot be reduced to any mechanism. So the dissipative system is the
first ultra-mechanical system. Its main features is the production of a dynamic
boundary and the production of order within that order that causes catastrophic
disorder in the environment around it in order to compensate and conserve entropy.
Next we move to the Autopoietic system -- that is to say the living/cognitive system
which is operationally closed. This system is a perpetual motion machine realized
in finite space. Its closure results from the joining of two dissipative waterfalls and
thus two orders from nowhere into a single structure like an Escher waterfall. The
dual boundaries combine to give the closure of a torus but within a dynamic barrier.
This is to say that closure manifest through time. The operation of producing
closure is called the process of self-organization. This occurs because it is not just
that order comes in from nowhere but that order from nowhere is itself ordered.
This meta-ordering from nowhere is what we call self organization. It allows order
to be directed at the self by the self. However, such a system is not reflexive. In
order to achieve reflexivity we need to double the system again so we can have
double closure. Double closure is in fact heterodynamic instead of homeostatic. It
is able to see its own closure and react to it. It is social in the sense that this can
only occur if one autonomous individual can look at another and reflect it back to
itself. When every individual can do this then we have a reflexive autopoietic
system. G.H. Mead calls this taking the role of the other. Symbolic interactionism
has described this sort of social behavior very well for a long time. What has been
lacking is the computational perspective which we will now introduce.
We posit that the turing machine which seems to be the last word in expressing the
characteristics of computation is identical with the threshold of illusory continuity.
585
But we can imagine various operations on turing machines that allow us to build up
a picture of what goes beyond the level of defining computation. The first point is
that there are turing machines that can code themselves onto their tapes. This
operation changes the two dimensional table of the state machine into a one
dimensional string of symbols. This transformation from two to one dimensions
and back is equivalent to the dissipative system. There is though this operation the
possibility that a turing machine could turn itself into its dual by reading its image
backward. Thus a left handed turing machine could be turned into a right handed
turing machine. The dynamic of the transformation from a one dimensional string
to a table and back to a string then back to the enantiomorphic table is a similar
operation to setting up of the dynamic boundary of the dissipative system. Think of
the tape as the environment and the turing machine as the dissipative system. The
turing machine takes a blank tape and turns it into a complex pattern introducing
entropy into the tape. Perhaps as its last act it blanks the table of the turing machine
itself except for the part that reads the tape back. Now the tape has been disordered
and the truing machine has been ordered. Then the process is reversed as the turing
machine is read back but backwards it produces the opposite turing machine for
which the tape now looks left handed instead of right handed. It transfers its code
back into the turing machine table reconstituting the enantiomorph of the turing
machine from the tape. The last action is to blank the tape except for the start
symbol. Thus entropy has poured back into the turing machine from the tape that is
now ordered. This ability to produce enantiomorphic transformation reminds us of
the four dimensional rotation between the complex numbers and the real numbers.
Here the tape reminds us of the real numbers whereas the complex numbers is
equivalent to the new dimension of the table within the turing machine. The
transfer of the information back and forth between the tape and the turing machine
is like the twisted boundary of the dissipative system in its dynamics. Order from
nowhere is the coding scheme that is arbitrary but allows the structure of the turing
machine to be preserved in the one dimensional form.
Now when we consider the universal turing machine -- that is a turing machine
structure that can imitate any specific turing machine -- we move to the next level of
generality. A universal turing machine makes it possible to read any turing
machine from a tape and constitute that turing machine. The universal turing
machine is a doubling of the turing machine structure. It is a turing machine which
reads other turing machines from tape and executes them. This doubling of the
turing machine structure is equivalent to the autopoietic system. It is organizing
itself by reading a specific turing machine structure from tape and executing it then
586
disengaging that one and doing the same thing over with another turing machine
from the tape. Here the generality of the Universal turing machine gives a second
order ordering which is like an operating system for executing turing machine
programs. It is closed in that it will support all turing machines but not other kinds
of machines. The network of executable turing machines form the set of nodes. If
we consider how a Universal turing machine would write itself to disk we and read
back its dual we see that the Universal turing machine doubles the normal turing
machine that does the same thing. The Universal turing machine is a virtual
machine on which turing machines execute but it itself is a turing machine that can
preform the same enantiomorphic operation as other turing machines but its doing
so is twice as complex in that it must write not only itself but all other turing
machines to tape and then like we might reboot with a different operating system it
must read itself back from tape and then read a specific turing machine back form
tape to run in the enantiomorphic turing machine operating environment. So we
posit that the Universal Turing machine is at the same level of complexity as the
autopoietic system. The difference is that we see the autopoietic system as
organizing itself. This is to say that the suite of programs on the tape is such that it
is identical with the operation system of the Universal turing machine itself. The
reading the programs from tape in a specific order is the same action as organizing
itself as a universal turing machine. Thus the autopoietic system is a special case of
a universal turing machine where the turing machines it reads from tape are
identical with the universal turing machine itself so that it is organizing itself
through the execution of a set of turing nodes. It is closed in a second sense of only
executing programs that make up itself and no other programs. It is this special
case of identity between the suite of programs and the universal turing machine that
satisfies the conditions of autopoiesis. It is an image of transcendence attempting to
ground itself. It is the embodiment of paradox. Like four dimensional rotations it
only seems like a paradox because it seemingly violates three dimensional rules.
Finally there is the case of interacting universal turing machines that are exchanging
programs that represent nodes of themselves or other symbolic streams over a
mutually held tape. This case brings us to the level of the social machine and
sociological computation. Such a system allows the two social machines to have
images of the other within themselves. They communicate via a protocol which is
really a meta-state machine encompassing both social machines. What makes them
social machines is the fact that they are at once separate and at the same time part of
a meta-system of turing machines who all have an image of each other and perhaps
the whole of which they form a part. The social machine is social precisely because
587
it is part of a meta-machine of individuals who all have the same internal image of
how they appear to the others and they base their actions toward the others on that
image. In the minimal social machine this is accomplished because there is a
protocol or higher level state machine that embraces all the social machines in the
society of social machines. These social machines can read each others programs
and thus have an image of how the others will react and then given this context can
change their own actions to anticipate what the others would do if it did some
action.
Computational Sociology is more fundamental than distributed artificial

intelligence because all the techniques of artificial intelligence are paradoxes in the
software layer. Thus we must first define the software layer independently of the
artificial intelligence capabilities. That software layer is described by the set of
minimal methods which are partial machines. We add Artificial Intelligence by
taking advantage of paradoxes in the software layer to produce opaque seemingly
intelligent behavior. But this is done in the context of the layer of software methods
from which all paradox have been excluded. In fact these minimal methods allow
us to analyze the real-time system of cooperative social machines from every
possible point of view. Up to the point were social machines occur there is really
only one computational machine. Social machines is the point at which multiple
interacting machines arise sharing the same tapes as communicational channels.
This is the point were these machines become independent agents idealized as
Actors given Agha’s model. This is a threshold where endless variety of distributed
and parallel computational structures are produced. The minimal social machine
sits right at the point of the production of distributed and parallel structures. It is
defined as the minimum structure that will allow two universal turing machines to
talk to each other. It can also be seen as the point where instead of a single turing
machine reads itself from tape and then back on to tape the enantiomophic images
of the same universal turing machine are both instantiated at the same time. This is
a fundamental point of bifurcation where the mirroring is embodied directly. It is
but a step till the two images begin to talk to each other and this minimal difference
of enantiomorphism becomes two complimentary or different universal turing
machines participating in the same computational society where society is given the
same definition as in Symbolic Interactionism which is basically done through
everyone taking the role of the other at which point specifically social emergent
structures appear.
When we add to the minimal social machine the capacity to use hyper-matrix logic
588
and hyper-hyper-complex algebras as a means of defining operations then we get a

very robust computational environment. It is the role of computational sociology to
explore this rich computational environment that stands in the breach between the
single universal turing machine and all distributed turing systems that cooperate
with each other to produce emergent effects that no one system can produce on its
own. Computational sociology stands between software and artificial intelligence,
between Von Neuman architecture and distributed computational architectures,
between general systems theory and software engineering. It is the pivotal
discipline around which all disciplines revolve because it provides the fundamental
model of the minimal independent intentional agent as a basically social creature,
i.e. who can cooperate with others and produce higher order harmonious structures.
What is fascinating is that many real-time systems already assume this level of
cooperation and all we are saying is that we can produce artifacts that display
sociality because we are inherently social creatures. In fact the social aspect of our
being is the most fundamental aspect of who we are. We cannot be individuals in
the Western sense unless we arise out of society. We are constituted out of the
social milieu and are nothing -- mere wolf children without that primary social
matrix -- we can call it a matrix because it was fundamentally a spacetime/
timespace environment where we learned to process symbols at a distance and
through them learned to act at a distance on others and cooperate with them by
having an internal image of how they saw us which we reacted to in anticipation.
The social level is the most fundamental. By producing an image of minimal social
machines we are not saying that all social behavior can be reduced to minimal
social machines. We are in fact saying that our computational simulation systems
in container spacetime must be enhanced to account for very specialized systems
such as the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems. These specialized
systems exist at very precise levels of complexity and can be emulated by
computational structures. If we want to simulate symbolic interaction within a
society there is a minimal level of complexity at which we must poise our
simulations. This does not mean there are not more complex structures but it means
that any symbolic interacting system can be simulated by some combination of
minimal social machines. However, such a reduction may destroy emergent
properties within the social level. This is because for the social level computation is
not the correct measure of all things any longer. At the dissipative level the criteria
moved from computation to the dynamic entropy exchange which must define
information in terms of ordered data. Data exists along with events at the level of
illusory continuity. Then from information we move to the knowledge level.
Knowledge gives us a deeper understanding of information. It adds a basis of
589
understanding to the information. Knowledge appears at the autopoietic system

level because such a system in inherently cognitive. At the social level we get
wisdom where in addition to a basis of understanding we add experience. All
wisdom is inherently social in character. Only a fragment of a social system can
display wisdom because only a fragment of a social system has a history.
Autopoietic systems have no history. To it all events at the surface are
perturbations. The Social system has an active heterodynamic relation to its past
and future. It is projecting its history as a rewriting of the past based on the
appearance of emergent events. Thus the social system is the spawning ground for
wisdom which synthesizes knowledge, information, and data.
20. Artificial Intersubjective Simulation
Ben Goertzel has the concept of simulating artificial societies as shared belief
systems. I would turn this idea upside down and say that the social level of shared
beliefs is more fundamental than the individual belief systems. Thus the social
level must be seen as a level that exists as a constraint on the individual level rather
than something that arises just out of the interaction between individuals. The
individuals emerge out of the social milieu that acts as a constraint on the
individuals beliefs and actions. The shared belief comes before the individually
held belief. We are all initially lost in the They. Dasein is inherently social in
nature and may be made up of more than one person as in Japan where traditionally
the unit of society was the Ie instead of the individual or in china where the
individual was the clan. You tell this by looking at who is killed if something very
bad happens.
One of the objects of computational sociology is to produce a simulation of social

processes. Such a simulation would be based on Goertzel’s model of chaotic
processes but would be at the level of complexity presented here for the definition
of minimal social machines. Such machines must be capable of computing Cayley
algebras and Hyper-Matrix Logic operations. The point of this is that Hyper-Matrix
Logic operations are inherently structural formal at once. It is the only system I
know of that is both completely formal and completely structural at the same time.
When we move to the Hyper-Matrix Logic level the forbidden operations of Matrix
Logic proper do not prove to be a hinderance any longer. We can chance the basis
of our computations at will to get around the forbidden operations so that perfect
rotations within the formal-structural system may be accomplished. Now having a
logic by which we test functions this must be complemented by an algebra. It is the
590
algebra that allows us to manipulate autonomy by counting. That algebra must in

this case support hyper-hyper-complex operations which give us not just closed
loops (Klienian Bottles) in the fourth dimension but self reflexive closed loops.
This is to say that the Klienian bottle of the reflexive autopoietic system can turn
itself inside out and see itself from the inside and outside at the same time.
Knowing the right level of complexity to poise the reflexive autopoietic system
simulator at and that it participates in both Cayley algebra and Hyper-Matrix Logic
as well as the fact it is a series of Universal Turing machines that are talking to each
other across there tapes adds a lot more structure to the model that Goertzel has set
out for the way chaotic processes interact. We would also like such a system to
exemplify all the minimal methods as the means of imposing the order on the entire
social milieu. We see now that design methods are the means by which the social
machines acting as a society can impose order and unity on themselves. They do
that through invoking partial machines. Thus we see here directly the relation of
the socius to the partial machines which bounds the stage of the arrival of the turing
machine from two directions just as Deleuze and Guattari predicted. And of course
we would want to be able to use the paradoxes in the layer of minimal methods to
give the social machines intelligence. In fact we say that living or autopoieticly
closed machines are the object of artificial life. Artificial intelligence is a
concomitant at the same level as artificial life. Artificial sociality exists at the next
level up from the knowledge level and at than level we can begin talking about
artificial wisdom which blends knowledge with experience. But the root of such
wisdom is the understanding of how to make non-nihilistic distinctions and such
distinctions are ultimately founded on the ability to recognize the genuinely
emergent event. Artificial wisdom is receptivity and proactive involvement in
searching for the emergent event. We might posit that if we take all the artificial
intelligent techniques and use them in all their permutations the limit which they
approach is artificial wisdom. All the different kinds of machine learning when
used together in every possible combination also approaches this limit. Artificial
wisdom is the ability of a machine to deal with genuine emergent events which
means the totally unexpected that causes all your paradigms, epistemes, or
interpretations of Being to shift. The minimal social machine simulator strives to
produce not just emergent events but wise responses to such events within the
simulation. We take into account that emergent events will occur but we strive to
have our simulated social systems react wisely to these emergent events. This is the
Palmer test of a simulation of a social machine. Is it impossible to distinguish the
wisdom of a social machines reaction to genuine emergent events from that of a
591
human or some other social creature. Each social species makes its own test.
21. Fifth and Sixth Dimensional Rings
We have posited that the pentahedron of four dimensional space is the minimal
model of the autopoietic ring. We will not posit that the sextahedron of five
dimensional space is the minimal model of the social or reflexive autopoietic
system. We note that at this level in Pascal’s triangle if you add up all the elements
you get 64 just as 32 was the ultimate the number of qualities that appeared at in the
pentahedron. This is of course the number of words in the language of DNA. It is
the number of Hexagrams in the I Ching. It is the amount of information embedded
in the Chess board and each side in the chess pieces. 64 is the first number that
allows transformation from three dimensional configuration to a two dimensional
configuration and back again where one knows the exact mapping between all the
positions of elements in both dimensions. Thus the chess pieces of one side as a
three dimensional thing when considered as merely information maps directly into
the board. Because both sides do this that is the basis for the conflict in chess.
Chess is an artifact poised exactly on the threshold of complexity where the social
comes into existence. This opens another line of inquiry as to whether there are
other cultural artifacts exactly on this threshold of complexity. We have already
mentioned that it is embedded within us as DNA and one of the basic books of
Chinese society was poised exactly on this threshold of complexity. The
sextahedron sets on this boundary and as we saw earlier it mediates between the six
simples and the six bodies; between the six Temporal Gestalts Causa Sui and the six
minimal method embodiments. In the I Ching we see beyond reversibilty and
substitution of lines there are twenty sources which equate to the twenty surfaces of
interaction between heaven and earth. Thus at the center of the social is a basic
dynamic interaction between heaven in the form of unseen causes (Hsing) and yin
earthly receptivities (elements) which produce twenty fundamental kinds of
interaction that we can say correspond to the Mayan Day Names. These
fundamental interactions are the basis of the distinguishing of the genuine emergent
event. Every genuine emergent event must be the after birth of an unseen cause that
impacts yin or earthly things. Knowing the twenty possible interactions allows one
to recognize the spreading streams of causation from that unseen event. There
should be four such independent rays of causation emanating from such a causal
event that are orthogonal to each other. These are of course chains of secondary
causes. The I Ching perfectly exemplifies the structure of this causation. It is based
on the fact that between any two hexagrams there is a third intermediate hexagram
592
which serves as a bridge and wall separating yet connecting the two. So every
hexagram serves in this intermediary capacity between two other hexagrams. From
this we see that the I Ching perfectly exemplifies the situation where the container
IS the contained and vice versa. This sameness between the container and the
contained makes the I Ching a perfect representation of a from that exists within the
web of interpenetration without disturbing that web. We have already said that the
social juts out into emptiness and must have interpenetration as its positive attribute
of highest harmony. So we see that the sexagonal five dimensional form has this
same structure as its basis. Just as the pentahedron models the autopoietic system
so the sextahedron is the perfect model of the inner structure of the social system.
All the states of the I Ching are states that the social cohort can attain. Here we are
talking about as a minimal structure. This is because the four dimensional
autopoietic structure needs another dimension in order to become fully reflexive. In
that higher dimension the static relations between heaven (the cognitive) and earth
(the living) become a dynamic in which the six Temporal Gestalts Causa Sui
interact with the six embodiments of the minimal methods via the twenty action-
reaction surfaces of response. If the hexagrams are the interference pattern between
the warp and woof of fate then we can see that the equivalent of the torus are the six
groups of seventy eight that correspond to the five groups of twenty at the level of
the pentahedron. Seventy eight plus three is eighty one, the number of operators in
Matrix Logic. The three missing are the pure unbroken, broken once, and broken
twice of the Tai Husan Ching. Thus the social level merges the I Ching and the Tai
Hasan Ching structures in a single over all structure. What the shape of the
Klienian bottle in the fifth dimension is unclear. However, we can see that it would
be given a new dimension to rotate involute and thus to achieve some dynamism
beyond the movement of shadows in the third dimension. The fifth dimension
brings dynamism to the structure of the minimal autopoietic ring. It is only the
beginning of infinite levels of interpenetration. But it is a particular level of
interpenetrating complexity at which the minimal social machine is poised. The
fact that the tetrahedron of viewpoints has this inner structure gives more credence
to our assertion that sociality is built into spacetime/timespace metric structures
from the beginning. It is we who separate sociality from spacetime. Thus our
primary assertion that space is social, that even the most a social aspect, the
fundamental category that is the root of all others is internally social in nature
because it demands a sextahederal lattice to resolve the interaction between the six
Temporal Gestalts Causa Sui and the six embodiments of the minimal methods.
593
22. Worlds within worlds
One of the things we notice if we look at Pascal’s triangle and meditate on the fact
that it is really an n-dimensional mandalla of all the simplest concave polytopes of
every space is that at the sextahedron in fifth dimensional space we are must on the
edge of an infinitely deep abyss of interpenetration. I believe this infinite series of
simplexes within simplexes is the harmonious heart of the interpenetration within
society. We are lodged at the level of the sextahedron because that is the minimal
level at which the social appears. But any level above that may be manifest within
the social realm. If we have 5.5 billion people on earth and they can be seen to form
a social milieu then somewhere up the ladder of Pascal’s triangle there will be a
simplex with 5.5 billion or so nodes that will embody the interpenetrating relations
between all the people on earth. But the sextahedron is special because it is the first
simplex at a level of complexity that allows the expression of sociality. The
pentahedron expresses the autopoietic and the tetrahedron expresses the simplest
figure that can appear in real space. The level of the dissipative system is marked
by the realization that the tetrahedron is not the only way of looking at a the
minimal system. We can see it as mobius strip, torus and knot as well. The
transformation between these geometrical interpretations of the tetrahedron is
similar to the production of the dissipative system. Those transformations carry on
up the ladder of the pentahedron and the sextahedron and perhaps beyond. We are
not interested in the beyond except to note that it is there. We are interested in
minimal formulations and the sextahedron is already plenty complicated for the
lowest level at which a fully social system to manifest.
Every society is made up of individuals that interlock in different degrees of

harmony but the highest harmony is interpenetration. The society projects the
world which the individual inhabits. It is a social construction. This social
construction of worlds leads us to study ontology in order to understand the nature
of worlds. But we must go beyond that and understand the minimal social machine
and its structure. We have taken a step in this paper of defining the structure of the
minimal social machine by isolating the level of complexity at which it exists. If
we combine this with Goertzels model of self-generating component system and
Arbib’s concept of a self-functoring machine category, then I believe we have a
sound basis for beginning to model the dissipative, autopoietic, reflexive system. It
has a specific scale in terms of complexity at which its minimal formulation sits.
That scale is precisely related to other scales though our series of stages. In that
series we have built a new way of looking at general systems theory in terms of
594
methodological distinctions and we have extended it step by step though hyper

algebras and hyper logics to formulate the social. But let us state that this
formulation is heuristic because the social is the most fundamental level of the
structure and we have only formulate the stages to allow those who do not share that
assumption of the fundamentalness of the social to understand how we get to the
threshold of the minimal social system. once there we do not pull of the ladder but
reverse its direction and state unequivocally that first there was the social and
everything at the other stages emanated from it through the painful process of
individuation peculiar to Western culture.
If we were to follow up this reversal we would say that the twenty sources or
response surfaces are fundamental and that around them the six Temporal Gestalts
causa sui and the six minimal system embodiments take form. These show the
interaction between viewpoints and the matrix. This interaction occurs within the
context of the autopoietic ring represented by the pentahedron. The autopoietic ring
is a specialization of the entropic twist of the openly closed (or dissipative) system.
And finally this all takes palace in spacetime/timespace of illusory continuity upon
which we can have four viewpoints and in which there are four basic embodiments.
We an view the systems that appear in this arena in terms of any level of
methodological distinction until we get back to no-order and no-distance which is
the furthest we can go in divesting ourselves of the tools by which to study dynamic
systems.
I will posit further that it is in the twenty response surfaces that the tendencies that
we have studied show up. We have said that it is the tendencies that are the explicit
categorical foundation of the social. Tendencies are just the opposite of
receptivities. Tendencies are incipient movement. Receptivities are passive
incipient acceptance of movement. Thus what occurs at the response surface is very
interesting. We know that each surface is the connection between a Temporal
Gestalt Causa Sui and a minimal system embodiment. But that connection is not
direct it is instead mediated by fifteen nodes on either side that mediate the relation
between the two pairs of six. The temporal gestalts causa sui are the hyper cycle of
jump starting points that allow the society to be ecstatic or heterodynamic. Through
the mediated relation to the minimal method embodiments they connect to the inner
workings of the turing machine. They are the ghost in the machine so to speak. But
what are the fifteen other nodes that mediate this relationship. Well if the Temporal
gestalt causa sui is like the simple and the embodiments are like the body then the
two sets of fifteen other nodes must be analogous to the skeleton and the manifold
595
or skin of the thing. They are a differentiation in one case and a lack of
differentiation in the other. We can relate them to the thirty two pentagrams from
which we would take away the all yin and the all yang ones to give thirty. This
thirty is divided into to sections of fifteen each that represents the manifold and the
skeleton. In this way we see there is an inner and deep relation between the four
kinds of thing looked at from the point of view of slicing and distortion ways of
worldmaking and the order and distance container based upon the other ways of
world making excluding weighting. We can also see that if weighting is seen to
occur in the twenty response surfaces then all five ways of worldmaking participate
intimately in this structure. It is a structure that digs beneath the ontological
foundations of ideation. It is a structure that is shown to be deeply based in the
social nature of all things which derive from there appearance in our world which
we project as the unfolding of the inherently social Thing. By treating what
appeared as basically a-social we have discovered a social basis for all
computational structures that can exhibit distributed or parallel execution. So we
have established the credibility of the reflexive system as the end of a sequence of
specializations of general systems theory that included the dissipative and
autopoietic systems. And since this end point is the minimal expression of the kind
of system that projects the world we can say that by turning our ladder of stages
upside down we have encompassed all the major ways of worldmaking identified
by Goodman and built a general theory of worlds that encompasses general systems
theory and all the specialized systems giving a formal basis for social
phenomenology. What is left is for us to go back into the roots of our own
worldview and show the genesis of that social system that has gained world
dominance that needed to construct the world such that constantly new worlds are
always emerging. This task has been undertaken in the authors book on the
Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void. But given the argument in
this paper we will consider the discipline of computational sociology based on the
foundation of social phenomenology well founded. The difference is that it is in
this case founded on the abyss of emptiness of an infinite regress of interpenetration
simplex structures. The regress of Pascal’s triangle is the crystalline structure
within the geode that encircles an empty center from which all meaning,
discrimination, recognition, and part/whole realization flows as a continuous
upwelling stream if it is not repressed. If it is repressed by building the wall of
illusory continuity to cut off the emptiness than Deleuze and Guattari record the
consequences as Oedipus, the embodiment of ideation, tragically stands his ground
ignoring the signs of his destruction.
596
23. Reprise: Moving Through the Stages Yet Again
Autopoiesis is the theory of living systems. An autopoietic system is self-

organizing, literally self-producing. It is necessary to understand the taxonomy of
all possible systems which includes the autopoietic system and its refinement into
the reflexive autopoietic system that appears as the epitome of sociality. Unless we
have a means of classifying all possible systems, which includes the classes of the
living-cognitive and the reflexive autopoietic systems, then it is difficult to
understand how autopoietic systems fit into the category of systems constructed by
general systems theory. General systems theory treats systems as objects. We have
realized that systems must be treated not as objects, but as gestalts, i.e. showing and
hiding processes. We have identified autopoietic systems as a special class in
which the self-grounding of transcendence of Being is exemplified. This is a lost
possibility which was outlined by Plato in his Laws. It occurs at the point just
before the collapse of Primordial Being into the artificial unity of conceptual Being.
These mechanical systems appear to be analogous to life and intelligence in their
emergent qualities. This is based on the fact that, like the Esher waterfall, they are
neverending perpetual motion machines. We have gone on to show that there is a
special class of autopoietic systems which are reflexive that embody sociality, and it
is the reflexive autopoietic system that is the fundamental embodiment of the social,
of the city in its primordial formation. As such, it has the form of emergence itself,
and thus it does not suffer from emergent events. It has a meta-stability within the
world because it is the source of the world, and when harnessed, becomes the
foundation of the Uni-verse. But these postulated special kinds of systems, which
are more than gestalts but embody the structure of meta-systems and worlds, need
to be differentiated from the kind of system that is a gestalt and from objects
contained in systems or the primitives that make up objects. We need a systems
theory that allows us to distinguish clearly between these different kinds of systems
and those elements that do not have the attribute of systems but appear within
systems. Systems are the expression of wholeness that the Indo-European tradition
continually strives after once it has shattered the wholeness of natural complexes.
To understand the expression of the Indo-European worldview in our own time, we
need to have a clear notion of the different kinds of systems and the meta-level
structures that appear on the basis of systems. This means we need to establish the
foundations of autopoietic systems theory which is a specialization of general
systems theory that deals with the specialized systems and meta-systems that appear
as possibilities within our worldview and are associated with life, intelligence,
society and all the emergent levels that are the expression of our own nature as
597
Indo-European humans who have broken and tamed the world bending it to our
own view of things. Understanding how these systems appear in our world, is to
gain some measure of self-understanding. Self-understanding is the obverse of self-
organization which can only appear at the level of the manifestation of the reflexive
autopoietic system.
Let us begin with B. Fuller’s definition of the minimal system. Here we shall only
deal with minimal systems because we are interested in the simplest possible
manifestations of the phenomena we study in autopoietic systems theory. Fuller
suggests that a minimal system has at least four elements overlapping their duration
in their spacetime manifestation. We call these elements eventities which signify
that they are both objects and events within the primary process of manifestation.
The four overlapping eventities may be viewed in many different ways, and our
autopoietic systems theory is a taxonomy of the ways in which they may be viewed.
A point made by Penrose in his book on spinors is that 4pi is the minimal movement
that can be thought of as being stationary in spacetime. Any movement less than
4pi, or standing still, can be seen as a movement. But a 4pi movement can be seen
as the same as not moving from all intertial reference frames. This means that the
minimal system is actually a reification of points that are fixed in four dimensional
spacetime. It means that a minimal system is the simplest thing that can look the
same in all inertial reference frames by all observers. The minimal system is
intrinsically intersubjective by the fact that it participates in all possible frames of
reference. So when we look into the minimal system, we are looking into the social
or the intersubjective in its simplest manifestation within the Uni-verse.
23.1. Stage One
The very first way that the relativistically stationary points may be viewed is as
isolated independent units. Charles S. Peirce would call these Firsts. Firsts are
anything that can stand alone without relation to other things. Thus, the first way
we can view the eventities of the minimal system is as having no real relation to
each other. We elect to not relate the eventities that make up the pieces of the
minimal system. As such, they are pure data or pure events. We might call them
infotons. They do not yet form a pattern. In fact, we are suppressing their
patterning and treating them as independent isolated units. In essence, they are each
minimal systems themselves, or else they could not be seen. Only minimal systems
manifest so that anything that is less than a minimal system is an abstraction from or
a dissection of a minimal system. But if we refuse to see the relation between the
598
eventities of the minimal system, then we are treating them as a plenum of pure data
or pure events. In systems engineering, it is requirements that have this nature.
Each requirement is an aphorism that expresses a need or desire of the customer.
Ideally, all requirements are perfectly orthogonal. Thus, requirements appear as
Firsts -- independent isolated units. But in the case of requirements, they are
expressed as linguistic statements. Minimal systems need not be made up of
linguistic statements. A good example is Wittgenstein’s book Zettel, which is
basically a box of clipped statements from other manuscripts. Zettel presents us
with a universe of statements which are independent of each other, floating together
like a cloud of aphorisms. They are the best indication of the insanity of
Wittgenstein. In fact, it is in the Firsts, the isolated requirements that express
desire, that we see the schizophrenic foundation of society manifest that Deleuze
and Guattari speak of in Anti-oedipus. Requirements express desire and need.
They are the fragments of desiring machines -- not yet machines, not yet systems or
networks of desiring machines, only the effervescing expressions of desires arising
out of the void. Firsts appear directly out of the void. They manifest, popping out
of nowhere as an expression of desire or need. We see them as a cloud of particles
acting under the statistical laws of thermodynamics like a perfect gas. They spread
to fill the whole of space. They are everywhere we look. Sensations, sensory data,
virtual particles or infotons are manifesting everywhere, pouring out of the void,
producing a pure plenum of desire which fills the world.
We can take a point of view on phenomena that sees the outpouring of Firsts from
the void. That viewpoint has been called the Catalyst. It is called the Catalyst
because it does not itself interact with the Firsts, but serves to cause them to change
into the primitive, object, system, meta-system, world, etc. by successive
transformations. We can see the relation of the Catalyst viewpoint to the eventities
of the minimal system considered as Firsts in terms Husserl’s concept of the
“intentional morphe” organizing the “hyle” of sensation. This is the idealist
(Kantian) view that transcendental subjectivity organizes the noumena into
phenomenal objects. We must conceive that the eventities are pure content which is
formed by the will to power of the transcendental subject in an act of domination.
Instead, we take a different view which concedes that there is a fundamental
viewpoint on minimal systems that is inherently disordered. That is to say, it has
access directly to the schizophrenic undercurrent upon which all the primitives,
objects, systems, etc. float. It is the writhing of spacetime itself at the micro-level
where virtual particles are created and destroyed within the limit set by Plank’s
constant. But this appears only as schizophrenic to the repressive regime. The
599
Catalyst sees it as an outpouring of the cornucopia of variety. Human beings are

variety producers. This variety manifests, and upwells from the void. It is the
Catalyst viewpoint that sees this upwelling. It is the positive side of the essence of
manifestation. As Deleuze and Guttari say, the unconscious, or body without
organs, may have various intensities. Its zero intensity is the practico-inert or
matter. Substance is the hiding place of the essence of manifestation. It is the
source of all interference and resistance within the world. But this pure immanence
may also appear at the other extreme of its intensity as the cornucopia of the
upwelling from the void of a myriad varieties of partialities. When I say I am
partial to something, I express a desire. This is the upwelling of independent
isolated desires which is the substrata of sensation. As sensation draws us in to
notice it, we then expresses the obverse of our desire flowing out toward the world.
The Catalyst viewpoint sees this upwelling of desires and all the partialities which
we interpret as pure data and pure events. They flood in on us and overwhelm us,
and it is through them that we get some intimation of the overwhelming of primary
process, i.e. manifestation. The Catalyst viewpoint will eventually become one of
a set of viewpoints on existence, and in relation to those other viewpoints will have
its related set of minimal methods. But at this stage, the Catalyst viewpoint has no
minimal methods; it is merely the witnessing of the upwelling of Firsts from the
void. This viewpoint has no basis for thinking about the firsts that are appearing.
Because logic has not yet appeared, there is nothing on the basis of which to
produce relations. This viewpoint can only contemplate or witness what appears to
it. It is purely reflective, not in the sense of reflexive in which thought thinks about
itself, but in the sense of reflecting, like a mirror, what appears before it. In
reflecting the phenomena that appear, the Catalyst has an effect on that which
appears. It is not a transcendental subject, a metaphysical illusory continuity, but
instead is that which, by its presence, causes a transformation in which it does not
participate within the realm of the sensations themselves. In fact, we eventually
realize that the unity of the Catalyst is the nihilistic opposite of the ignored relations
between eventities of the minimal system, and that the forcing of the eventities to
become minimal systems is a repression that hides the minimal system by distorting
it into four minimal systems and the unity of the Catalyst viewpoint. In fact, when
we return to viewing the minimal system without repressing its inner unity, we see
that it is unnecessary to produce the nihilistic opposites of the pure sensation and
the perceiver of that pure sensation. The nihilistic opposites are really repressing
the unity of the natural complex of the minimal system. We see that the Catalyst
viewpoint is an artificial construct that appears because of the repression which
turns the eventities of the minimal system into pure events and pure data -- infotons.
600
But then, all the viewpoints on the minimal system are artificial constructs, and so
this should not deter us from seeing their importance. The production of
perspectivalization is the action of active nihilism. The Catalyst viewpoint is only
one of a set of fundamental viewpoints we will discover in our articulation of the
fundamental taxonomy of autopoietic systems theory.
Figure 110:
eventity
VOID
eventity Catalyst
eventity
eventity
23.2. Stage Two
When we stop repressing relation in the natural complex of the minimal system of
eventities, then the first kind of ordering that appears is partial ordering. Partial
ordering means that the converse of a posited relation may not hold. Thus, we see
the eventities of the minimal system in terms of a series of one-way relations where
any one relation does not imply any other relation. It is a web constructed on a
case-by-case basis between the set of eventities. This web is an expression of the
will to power. It expresses dominance of dualism in which one element lords over
another (women, barbarians, slaves, children, etc.), establishing one-way power
relations. Partial ordering expresses calculus of domination under dualism.
Dualism expresses the transcendental movement which is summarized by
Conceptual Being. Here in Husserl’s terms, we see the first appearance of noesis
and noema as combinations of formative powers and content. Noesis is where
formative aspects are emphasized over content as in ideation, while noema are
where content aspects are emphasized as in perception. At this stage, we recognize
that the separation of subject and object as pure sensation is a false dichotomy, and
that these two are always intertwined. Here we see the single Catalyst viewpoint
split into two very different viewpoints. There is the viewpoint which is associated
with intention which is called functional. And on the other hand, there is the
601
viewpoint which is associated with autonomy which is called the agent. These two
viewpoints see the eventities of the minimal system in two different lights. The
Functional viewpoint sees the eventities in terms of the transformative processes
they embody. The Agent viewpoint sees them in terms of something that may be
indicated as having independent existence. It has already been made clear that the
Functional viewpoint expresses the ready-to-hand modality and grasping, whereas
the Agent viewpoint expresses the present-at-hand and pointing. Both of these are
differentiable meta-levels of Being. They both arise here together at the second
stage of our systems theory. They may be seen as the splitting of the Catalyst
viewpoint which witnesses pure primary process (manifestation). For the Catalyst
viewpoint, conceptual Being is an indivisible whole. With the advent of these two
additional viewpoints, the possibility of secondary process appears. Secondary
process is intentional and is carried out by existent eventities. Here the difference
between essence and existence becomes clear. The functional is related to the
essence of the eventity. Agency is related to the existence of the eventity. To the
extent that the eventity is purely present, it can be singled out as an Agent. To the
extent that the eventity is a transformative process, it can be singled out as a
function. Its functionality tends to show how it is related to other eventities. Its
agency tends to emphasize its independence and isolatability from other eventities.
The introduction of partial ordering also allows us to consider the minimal system
as a lattice. A lattice helps us express the nature of all the partial ordering one-way
relations. Thus, we can see that a tetrahedron, the geometrical representation of the
minimal system, is primarily a lattice structure. The tetrahedron is a lattice with a
structure of 1-4-6-4-1 as it appears in Pascal’s triangle. The partial ordering
relations taken together can be represented as a lattice. But because partial ordering
and lattice structure work together, it is possible to produce a hierarchy out of the
eventities based on both of these structures. The hierarchy is the primary
expression of dominance as a static structure. In the lattice, we work through all the
possible relations between the eventities. All the possible relations gives us a lattice
structure that organizes the eventities of the minimal system in total. But the
hierarchy is not reducible to just a set of binary relations. Thus, we encounter here
what C. S. Peirce calls Thirds. Thirds are when significance is generated as a by-
product from sets of dual relations. It is of interest that we jump here directly from
Firsts at stage one to Thirds at stage two. The hierarchy has some information
which is not captured by a mere list of all its dualistic relations. The hierarchy is a
pattern. The pattern has significance. That supplement of significance, or
relevance, cannot be captured by the set of binary relations. There is always a third
602
dimension which is generated when the relation is made. Peirce makes this point,
and we re-emphasize it here. When the pieces as Firsts are arranged into a pattern,
some significance is produced which goes beyond the information given. But what
we realize is that this is the entry point of the third thing. We realize that as soon as
the relation as a partial ordering appears, we have logic and the syllogism. Here we
have entered into the realm of the flaw which connects everything together on the
surface with a web of outward relations that depend on secondary causation. The
upsurge from the void is covered over by the web of connections produced by
ideation. The Third is the action of ideation which connects the eventities of the
minimal system. The Third is the illusory continuity being actively maintained. As
soon as any connection is made, this illusory continuity manifests, and we see it as
the ability to discriminate sources of secondary process within the primary process.
The locus of secondary process is located by looking for autonomy and
transformation, i.e. agency and functionality. We see the eventities of the minimal
system as parts, even though we do not see the whole yet. We see them as parts as
the action of ideation discriminates them in relation to each other.
In systems engineering, we see a fundamental pattern which relates the three

viewpoints so far enumerated. The Catalyst viewpoint is that which isolates
Requirements. The Functional viewpoint isolates the Functional architecture of the
system. The Agent viewpoint isolates the physical architecture. As has been
explained in an earlier essay, these are tied together with a set of mappings that
express their truth. The requirements establish the connection with reality as
linguistic statements are mapped to desires and states of affairs. The functional
architecture stands in for the mind as the physical architecture stands in for the body
in a dualism that asserts the dominance of transcendence. The hierarchy of
functions are mapped to the hierarchy of agents which are, in turn, mapped to the
requirements. Those requirements may be either functional, performance or
physical in nature. Also, there is a mapping of functional architecture elements to
hardware and software -- that is to technology or meta-technology. The
interworking of the three viewpoints together gives us a picture of the will to power
of transcendence. This is the advent of the Third thing as a “Third” -- a generated
significance -- the production of illusory continuity by ideation. The systems
engineering process embodies this in the production of designs. Production of
designs is more fundamental than factory production. It is not who controls factory
production that is crucial. What is crucial is who controls the means of production
of designs. Engineering is the place where new product innovation occurs. Control
that, and you gain the technological edge, which is what counts. The real
603
competition is over patents. Patents generate streams of revenue which you do not
have to do any production to capture. Other people do production and license the
technology from the inventor.
We are now in a position to appreciate the nature of the autopoietic system. The
autopoietic system fuses autonomy and intentionality. It intentionally organizes
itself as an autonomous unity. When functionality and autonomy are separate, then
one has an allopoietic system which must have been produced by an autopoietic
system. Autopoietic systems embody secondary process, whereas allopoietic
systems embody tertiary process. The fused agent and function viewpoints are not
the same as the Catalyst viewpoint. The difference is between the inside and
outside of the autopoietic system. Whatever is outside the autopoietic system is
seen as an onslaught of perturbations. Thus, the Catalyst viewpoint sees the arising
of these perturbations and their impact on the autopoietic system. The fused
functional and agent viewpoints sees the closed inside of the autopoietic system
which is independent of all the perturbations by arising Firsts. The fused function
and agent viewpoint views the inside of the autopoietic system as a single unbroken
continuity which cannot be breached from the outside, and to which anything
happening on the outside is irrelevant. The whole focus of the autopoietic system is
to perfectly align the functionality of the system with its embodied autonomy. In
fact, its function is to remain autonomous by imposing its functions upon its
autonomous parts, rendering them a unity. As we move from stage to stage, we will
see how this is accomplished. However, it is interesting that the definition of the
autopoietic system is implicit in the structure of the three viewpoints which appear
when the very first kind of relation between the eventities of the minimal system
can be defined.
604
Figure 111:
REALITY
desires / needs
REQUIREMENTS
Concept
transcendence
PHYSICAL
FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
BODY
MIND multiple kinds
intentionality multiple instances
one kind constrained
Control
MAPPING
TRUTH
verification
S S S
interpretation
The functional and the agent viewpoints are intimately involved with language.
Were the Catalyst viewpoint witnesses meanings arising out of the void, these later
viewpoints are directly connected with the expression and embodiment of
significance as in natural language. Function expresses significance, and Agency
embodies significance. Significance appears in the relation between diacritically
related things. This is another way of talking about the apprehension of their
functionality. But significance must be embodied through signs. The signs have
their own life as icons, which in some way must have a material component that
gives them independent existence and some measure of persistence, if only fleeting.
So for example, words have a function within a grammar which confers and
regulates their significance within lkanguage. Words also have a significance in
speech as concrete embodiments of significance in a particular context. Many
times, words stand in speech alone and only have meaning in relation to this
605
context. Speech can also be the site of the emergence of grammar and the words
themselves. When the grammar and the words are mutating and evolving, we get
some access to meaning beyond significance. When the function and the autonomy
of the words merge and fuse, we get poetry. When the grammar and the words
begin to mutate, the poetry breaks down into aphorisms which are the first
expression of philosophy. Poetry looks only to its own form, whereas philosophy
looks beyond the form of the poem to the world in which the poem relates.
Philosophy and poetry belong together as the Same. The fusion of function and
agent within the autopoietic system belong together with the Catalyst viewpoint
which looks at what is beyond the autopoietic system. The ring of the autopoietic
system produced by the advent of the Third floats within a cloud of Firsts that to it
are merely perturbations.
23.3. Stage Three
When C.S. Peirce formulates the concept of the Third, which is seen by him as a
fundamental category that goes beyond logic, he also posits that there is no further
category needed1. B. Fuller, on the other hand, posits a further category which we
may call, following Perice’s terminology beyond his usage, Fourths2. Fuller calls
the category synergetics. Synergy is the interweaving of parts into a whole where
each part has multiple uses within the unity of all the parts and which produces a
whole greater than the sum of its parts. In systems engineering, that whole is called
the system concept. In software engineering, it is the non-representable software
design. It arises as a dialectical synthesis between the Functional Architecture and
the Physical Architecture. It cannot be captured directly. So at this stage, there
appear two kinds of ordering which are duals of each other. There is linear ordering
in which any relation has an inverse. As its dual is partial ordering with distance
which adds a metric to the partial ordering which says how far apart the ends of the
partial ordering relation are as an additional piece of information. These dual
methodological distinctions arise at the same level and are the means by which the
synergetic concept of the minimal system is framed. Here the minimal system may
be seen as either a set of linear relations or as a set of partial ordered relation with
distance or a mixture of the two. Through this mixture, the synergetic concept,
which is a wholeness greater than the sum of the eventities that make up the
minimal system, is defined.
At this stage, we get objects appearing. Objects are shaped forms. They are not
1. See Robert. W. Burch, A Peircean Reduction Thesis: The Foundations Of Topological Logic (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech U.P., 1991)
2. Synergetics I & II
606
two dimensional like hierarchies, but three dimensional. The object may be
designed. It is the addition of a metric or of reversible linear relations that allow
that design to be effective. Dynamic objects are machines. Machines require
design where a set of parts are combined in a particular way which allows them to
function. Autopoietic systems are machines that organize themselves. Autopoietic
systems are four-dimensional machines that may be perpetual, unlike three-
dimensional machines.
The system concept has two aspects: a selection of significant dimensions and a
motif. The set of significant dimensions collapses the design space to concentrate
on its most important aspects. The motif is a meta-pattern or template from which
candidate concrete designs might be produced by varying parameters along
significant dimensions. The system concept appears as an eidetic intuition in
Husserl’s terms beyond the noematic nucleus of the minimal system. Thus, here we
see the place where essence perception arises, and what Peirce calls abduction. We
step outside the logic of the standard syllogisms that allow induction and deduction
and see that the syllogism has a third form which was not considered relevant in
antiquity, but can be seen to be the basis of projection of the scientific hypothesis.
Peirce pointed out this third form of the syllogism, and used it to construct his
pragmatic logic that relied on abduction. Husserl, in a similar move, pointed out
that essence perception allows us to understand things without induction or
deduction, but by direct apprehension. The system concept is just such an
abduction or essence perception. But it is ineffable, so that it can only be
represented on the basis of techniques which have a categorical cardinality (in
Peirce’s sense) between the Thirds and Fourths. We can guess that the categorical
cardinality of these techniques is about three and a half. They are based on the
duals of Linearity and Partial Order with Distance. In terms of software
engineering methodologies, these are the minimal methods called Mapping and
Virtual Layered Machine. Here, mapping that appeared as the link to truth in the
systems engineering process is explicitly defined. The inverse of the mapping is the
concrete representation of the combined functional and physical architecture as a
layered machine. The machine must have an abducted or directly intuited design
that is its core. Machines are embodied theories, as Persig has said. So here, at this
third stage, the machine which is designed appears at the same moment that the
means of mapping is defined. The design occurs through the advent of the dual
minimal methods. Other methods bridging between other viewpoints will appear at
the next stage of the unraveling of this systems theory.
607
The concept appears when the minimal methods as defined by the methodological
distinction duals are brought into close juxtaposition. But they will tend to collapse
into full ordering at which point the abductive possibility will vanish. The
application of linearity and partial ordering with distance to the same eventities
allows this juxtaposition to occur. Here we can see that linearity has an affinity to
that part of the system concept that appears as a motif or template. Partial ordering
with distance has an affinity for the part of the system concept that appears as the
selected significant dimensions. This is because distance introduces a spatial metric
by which dimensions may be defined. As long as these two dual methodological
distinctions are held together yet apart, the system concept can appear. As soon as
they collapse into a full ordering, then the system concept as an abduction or eidetic
intuition vanishes. The illusory continuity of full ordering covers over their
possibility.
Seeing the designed object or machine as a conceptual whole is not yet seeing it as a
system. To be a system, it must have a showing and hiding apparatus as well as a
mechanical apparatus for movements of parts. The design concept is like the
embodies mind as the mechanical aspect is like the body. Thus, we see that the
mind/body dualism established at stage two appears again here at stage three in
another guise. Here the synthesis of Thirds into a Fourth dominates the machine as
an assemblage of parts, giving it a static formal-structural wholeness.
23.4. Stage Four
At the next stage, full ordering appears as the combination of linear order and
distance. This is where the real number system with its algebras and geometry
appear. Here the minimal system appears geometrically as a tetrahedron, the
simplest form and algebraically as a set of four simultaneous equations with four
unknowns. Here what Godel called an “arithmetic,” which was an algebra
combined with a logic, also appears. Godel’s proof holds sway here where he
shows that the combination of algebra and arithmetic (or geometry for that matter)
cannot be reduced to any axiomatic system. Full ordering has an implicit and
hidden flaw which is seen with the advent of the transcendental numbers. These are
real number sequences that are infinite and cannot be generated by any function. At
the very point where full ordering appears, it is undermined by the weakness of its
algebra (or geometry) which does not allow axiomization and the appearance of
irrational numbers (square root of two) and transcendental numbers (pi).
Full ordering is the production of illusory continuity. It is with real numbers that
608
the possibility of the calculus becomes a reality. Without the real number, you
could not integrate or differentiate. The real numbers allow you to approach
infinity or infinitesimally in increasing or decreasing increments. Full ordering is
the epitome of the present at hand. In real numbers, we can model dynamic systems
as systems of differential equations. Both continuous and discontinuous functions
may be modeled with precision. In the real number system, not only are relations
reversible, but you have a metric that allows you to know how far apart the related
elements are in space or time or both. Here spacetime as an envelope appears. This
envelope which encompasses the eventities of the minimal system can be viewed as
a place-temporality (x+y+z-t) as spacetime, or in terms of causality as Minkowaski
timespace (past-present-future + nowhere). Given these two views, when the actual
elements of space and time are broken apart, we get two further viewpoints called
Data and Event when related to computation which sees memory and cpu cycles.
The advent of these two viewpoints, when added to the viewpoints of Function and
Agent, gives us ten more minimal method bridges which have already been
described in an earlier essay. There is an unreconcilable gap between the fully
ordered viewpoints and the partially ordered viewpoints which the minimal
methods attempt to bridge. The full set of the minimal methods give us a means of
modeling the behavior of the dynamic system. Thus, when we move to this stage,
we are now able to model the behavior of the minimal system fully even though we
cannot fully capture its design concept. These models capture exactly what occurs
in real space and time as modeled with the real number system. They cannot fully
capture the functioning of the designed machine as built which only approximated
by either the continuous or discrete modeling. The built machine is a combination
of continuous and discrete aspects -- like a lave (wavicle, wave/particle). Our
models of systems are always caught between these two different horns of the
modeling dilemma. Our models are projected upon the illusory continuity of the
real numbers which give us an infinity of points between any two points along with
reversible relations and a metric.
It is at this stage that the system appears as a showing and hiding apparatus, which
is to say a gestalt. The minimal system appears upon the surface of the real space as
the tetrahedron floating in the endless homogenous three-dimensional space. But
that tetrahedron really has three different ways it appears within that three-space. It
also appears as a minimal knot, as a torus, and as a mobius strip. Notice that the
knot is made up of a one-dimensional self-interfering closed strand with 720
degrees of angular change. Notice that the mobius strip is a two-dimensional
surface with one twist that makes it so it only has one side and one edge globally,
609
though it appears to have two sides and two edges locally, and it too embodies 720
degrees of angular change. Notice that the torus is a solid closed form in which
there exist two circular components at right angles which also embodies 720
degrees of angular chance. The tetrahedron is also a solid, but can be viewed as a
set of surfaces or lines or even just four points where all the elements are equal
length or size. It, too, embodies 720 degrees of angular change if you add up all the
angles of its triangular faces. Four pi is a crucial threshold of complexity which has
appeared before in this set of essays. The point is that the minimal system has
several different faces. It has different geometrical embodiments. But we may also
view it as a lattice which appears from one and differentiates and then returns to
one. The tetrahedron is a special threshold of complexity in interrelated concepts.
The geometrical interpretations are emphasized by us because of our Greek
heritage. The Greeks emphasized the concrete representation of conceptual
thresholds as objects in real space which we map as a gloss to the lived space of our
lifeworld. This is a way to separate ourselves from our own lived space, and
objectify it as a flat metricized container. The showing and hiding of the system
presents us at different times the different views of the minimal system on the
surface of real space. We do not necessarily recognize that it is really the same
threshold of complexity appearing differently in different contexts. As a form, we
see the different views as orthogonal to each other. It is only when we look deeper
that we see the structural relation that says that these are all expressions of four pi
self referential change. Thus in real space, we see that the minimal system that
embodies possibilities built into that space is both formal and structural
simultaneously. Thus, the minimal system is the simplest combination of formal
elements into a structural configuration. This same kind of juxtaposition can be
seen in the bringing together of logic and arithmetic to compose a system that
cannot be reduced to axioms. The difference between the terms of reference for the
four views of the minimal system that renders them orthogonal and non-
commensurable is exactly the same that introduces the non-reducibility of
arithmetic combined with logic to axioms. It is the same kind of structure that
makes non-rational and transcendental numbers a possibility within the real number
system. We think of the real system as transparent, but in fact, it is opaque. It is
opaque because the views of the minimal system in geometry are non-
commensurate despite a clear deep structural relation. It is opaque because algebra
and logic cannot be reduced to axioms. Algebra is an expression of the relations
between elements in real space or Seconds. Logic is the expression of Thirds. The
non-reducibility to axioms of algebra and logic together is more evidence of the
split between the partially ordered viewpoints and the fully ordered viewpoints. It
610
is from the vantage point of the functional or agent viewpoints that we see the deep
structural connection between the views of the minimal system. It is invisible
within geometry itself which would see these as unrelated geometrical forms. But
when we compare how they function to each other, and then compare the basis of
their autonomy, we see the deep structural linkage around the locus of four pi. We
see that transcendental numbers also are points in the grid of real numbers that
cannot be produced by any function. They are autonomous variety producers that
go on to infinity. There are certain aspects of the real numbers that can only be seen
from the vantage point across the gap which divides them from the partially ordered
viewpoints. The real numbers embody Seconds from Peirce’s categorical vantage
point. They are the epitome of pure relations which are metric and reversible. They
are relations that let you know exactly where you are. Relations that make you feel
safe. But little do we think that these Seconds are really illusory continuities
projected on our lifeworld. Little do we think about the nature of the opacity of the
real numbers that allow us to model so exactly spacetime relations between the
minimal system of eventities. Here we see the cluster of eventities within the realm
of special relativity and Minkowaski spacetime. Each eventity has its own inertial
frame of reference. In computing, this appears as the necessary lack of a global
clock in a distributed system. It is of interest that Seconds appear last of all.
Relations are artificially contrived and must be built up in a series of steps. If we
reverse those steps, we enter the substrate of the production of the illusory
continuity by ideation.
The autopoietic machine must appear in a spacetime region. This is part of its
definition that it must be embodied. So we see that each layer of the increasing
power of methodological distinctions leads us from one aspect of the definition of
the autopoietic system to another. The autopoietic system is fused function and
autonomy. It views the rest of the universe beyond its boundaries as perturbing
firsts. It is a designed machine and, in fact, it imposes its design on itself in an act
of self-organization. And it inhabits a neighborhood of spacetime which gives it an
embodiment. The definition of autopoietic machines is implicitly a definition of the
autopoietic machine. But we need to go beyond this to understand the operation of
the autopoietic machine. Because up to this point, we can merely see how the
autopoietic machine is defined in opposition to the definition of the allopoietic
machine. By understanding the extension of the taxonomy of the methodological
distinctions by the kinds of hyper complex algebras, we can also understand the
operation of the autopoietic system and the true difference between it and the
allopoietic machine.
611
It has been shown as we went along how the first two meta-levels of Being became
points of view at stage two. It would be good to look at that point again now that
we have reached the threshold of the production of illusory continuity or ideation.
The threshold of illusory continuity is a pure plenum in which all real numbers are
equally available. It is the analog in the mathematical realm of Pure Presence or
Being1. The ability to pick out any number at will and indicate it was associated
with autonomy and agency. The indicator and the indicated may be seen as agents.
But the realm within which indications are made is the plenum of pure presence or
equi-availability. When we make a calculation within that realm using arithmetic or
algebra, we are grasping and transforming some numbers into other numbers using
functions. Arithmetic does calculations directly on real numbers, whereas algebra
does these operations on virtual numbers or variables. Holding a number within a
variable is the epitome of grasping. Algebra does the manipulation, and it is logic
that determines whether the calculation or manipulation of equations is correct.
Algebraic formula can express states of affairs that are not true. Without Logic
Algebra does not connect with reality. It is the combination of Algebra and Logic
for which Godel’s proof holds. Logic sets the standard for the manipulation of
equations. That manipulation follows the proof process. But when we attempt to
reduce the Algebraic system that includes logic to a series of First principles, the
proofs fail. Axioms are Firsts. They, like Requirements, are independent isolated
unproven aphorisms. If Logic could ground Algebra in axioms, it would be
providing its own ground. It would be an example of transcendence grounding
itself -- termed by M. Henry: Ontological Monism. The Thirds of Logic would use
the Firsts of axioms to capture the Fourth of the Algebraic system that contains
many equalities or Seconds. Thirds would be dominating Fourths by using Firsts
and Seconds. If this were possible, then Fourths could be reduced to Thirds, then
Seconds and ultimate Firsts. Fourths are non-representable and non-reducible to
Thirds, Seconds, or Firsts. In fact, each Peircian category has its own sui generis
reality. There is no reduction within the series. That is why there is a series. Now
Algebra is a Third as well as Logic. Logic is a Third because it uses syllogism.
Algebra is a Third because it intersperses operators and equal signs. The simplest
formula is A op B = C. This is a triangular relation between the two terms and the
result, using the operation and the equality sign to structure the three part relation.
Thus, we notice that we have a structure like that in the discipline of systems
engineering with Functional architecture and Physical architecture where two
Thirds emanate from a First. In both the case of Logic and Algebra, there are
certain axioms necessary to formulate the basic relationships in the formal system.
Out of there two working together arises algebraic mathematics as a whole. The
612
process of simplification or theorem proving, which are opposites, are where

Process Being enters the picture. Process Being produces the temporal gestalt of
the proof which includes time that cannot be represented in the formal system. The
fact that the two Thirds working together cannot produce the Fourth is what
necessitates the existence of the structural system. The structural system takes into
account time. It explains the leap from proof step to proof step. It gives a picture of
the system as a whole which is temporalized and bridges the gap between the two
Thirds. The best example of a structual system is the General Systems Theory of
George Klir. The best example of a formal system is Laws Of Form by G.
Spencer-Brown. But as the Thirds stand independently of each other, we see that
the Structural system cannot really bridge the gap. It can only offer explanations of
the underlying structure. It does not have proofs that are strong like the Thirds are
able to produce. The Fourth is a whole defined by the Thirds and explained by the
Structural system. That whole is not reducible to its parts, and so Godel’s proof
holds. The fact that Godel’s proof holds, shows us that another kind of Being enters
the picture between the two proof structures (the proofs of Algebra and Logic
itself). That third kind of Being is called Hyper Being or Being3. It can, in fact, be
seen as the cancellation of the two Thirds with each other. This happens when it is
realized that the two thirds are, in fact, nihilistic opposites. But at first it is just a
foreboding which appears as Godel’s proof. Once it is realized that the formal
systems that work together to try to dominate the Fourth have no foundation and
that Being cannot ground itself, then the set of formal systems begin to unravel. We
realize that Algebra and Logic are inverted images of each other, and they begin to
cancel as functors between concepts appear and we realize that any formal system
has the same basic structure regardless of content. Multiple formal systems cannot
dominate a Fourth. The most that can be done is the production of structural
explanations. But proofs cannot be done in structural systems, only in formal
systems. Structural systems are like our minimal methods. They are at some fractal
level of methodological distinction between Three and Four. In the depths of the
structural system is a gap that cannot be breached between explanation and proof.
This gap is the hiding place of the Essence of Manifestation -- pure immanence.
Pure immanence hides within the process of manifestation. The discontinuities
between the steps of the proof are somehow absolute. This is why new things can
come into existence. We can always innovate in our proofs, and the system of
Algebra and Logic is somehow cracked so that new configurations are always
possible. This crack shows up in the complexity of Real space. Real space has
structure implicit within it. This implicit structure, along with the many infinities
that inhabit Real space, make it a wild region. Thus, we get a hint of where Wild
613
Being or Being4 enters the picture. After the cancellation of the two Thirds, what is
left is the implicit structure of the Real numbers and their infinities. They are
opaque instead of transparent. When we begin living in this transparency, then we
see that there is more in the designated-as-real world than we could have ever hoped
to capture with our formal-structural system. In fact, the formal-structural system is
an attempt to suppress this upwelling of variety where, for instance, we see that the
torus, know, mobius strip and tetrahedron are all the same thing from different
kinds of view. We separate mathematics into narrow specialities, but seldom look
for the crossover between these specialties that have significance. Category theory
provides some relief to this by establishing the ability to create functors between
separate categories, and thus see isomorphisms. In fact, we notice that our Catalyst
viewpoint, once it connects with the other viewpoints, attempts to establish these
connections. It attempts to establish all the relations or all the embeddings of a
particular kind of viewpoint. So we see the Catalyst as the positive aspect of the
negativity of the Essence of Manifestation. The Catalyst sees the outpouring of
variety as positive instead of negative. All possible embeddings and relations
between all four viewpoints is the ultimate interference pattern of manifestation
itself. From out of that interference pattern, virtual particles arise only to be
destroyed again by cancellation. In the clouds of those particles, many phantoms
appear only to disappear as the patterns are seen as not merely random. The
patterns are schizophrenic. This is because we are not used to apprehending
meaning. We are only used to projecting significance and repressing meaning. If
we stop frantically projecting in our anxiety about the groundlessness into which we
are falling, then we would see that the meanings have a subtle pattern of their own
when undistorted by the repression. That pattern weaves together the Well and the
Tree into a single image. The upwelling of the logos is the growth of the physos.
The Chi which comes from us and from outside us is unified and lays down a single
pattern or Li.
Stage Five
At the point that we have constructed the illusory continuity of the real numbers, we
must switch to another way of looking at the structure of systems theory. We
switch from looking at it in terms of methodological distinctions to looking at it in
terms of algebras. As far as algebras go, there are a finite number of possible
algebras that approach the power of the algebra that manipulates the real number
system. We are actually talking now about generating the complex numbers as an
addition to the real numbers. With the complex numbers, we generate the dual of
614
the real number system. That dual, like the mobius strip, has a twist in it analogous
to the geometrical twist but which defines the singularity i. I is the token that
indicates the difference between the imaginary numbers and the real numbers.
There is, in fact, no real difference between the numbers as such, but instead, the
significant feature is the group which allows i2 = -1. This twist allows the quadratic
equations to be solved for their roots. The group structure of the complex numbers
has the structure of rotations in four dimensional space. Thus, the move that adds
imaginary numbers is similar to the move that posits higher than three geometrical
dimensions. It is an appeal that calls for synergy. Here, synergy appears as the
twist that allows quadratic equations to be solved, and it also appears as the reuse in
higher dimensional platonic solids of lines and points to produce very complex
polytopes with a relatively small number of lines and points. The imaginary space,
and the fourth or higher dimension, is the place where the synergy of the Fourth is
realized. Thus, when we move into that realm we are entering a region in which
“synergy” is the by-word, and the inability to reach synergy by the formal-structural
system is left behind.
Now we posit that there is a kind of system that exists at this level beyond the
formal-structural system suspended in Real space. That kind of system is the
Dissipative system. It has been defined by Prigone and discovered to exist in
chemical processes. The dissipative system comes in two forms corresponding to
the left and right twist of the mobius strip. Either it is a system that pours entropy
out of the system into the environment, thus creating order within the system, or it
pours entropy out of the environment into the system. The first example is the neg-
entropic dissipative system. The second example is the catastrophic system which
is disintegrating into the environment. The dissipative system thrives on the basis
of catastrophe either way. The setting up of the boundary of the dissipative system
may be seen as a catastrophe from the viewpoint of the environment. The
dissipative system is an anomaly that stands against the current of thermodynamics.
It is like having water flow uphill. It can occur in special circumstances, but it is a
fairly rare occurrence.
We will relate the possibility of the dissipative system to what might be termed the
openly-closed system. Dynamic systems modeled in the Real space may be seen as
either open or closed. But we will define a system that is closed but at the same
time open. It is closed in the sense that nothing crosses its external boundary.
However, it is open inwardly instead of outwardly. This is possible because for a
given system we can posit that it has several structures that define its inward
615
articulation within the limits of its form. These different structures do not exactly
match eachother because of Godel’s proof. This means that no one structure can
reduce the formal system to a solid axiomatic foundation, so that each of the
different structural explanations interfere with eachother and, taken together, leave
singularities of unexplained anomalies within the framework of the overlapping
structures. These singulatities are open, and certain influences arrive there from
nowhere. In ancient times, these were known as oracles. Today we may call them
liminal areas. But the system is open to higher dimensional influences through
these gateways. These gates are analogous to the singularity i. They are analogous
to the higher dimensional spaces. We can see this kind of structure in the work of
Victor Frankl on meaning. We can see that this is exactly what Husserl found in
relation to Kant’s metaphysical system. Kant laid down some rules for what is
admissible to reason, and thus created a closed system which described ideation.
Ever since that point, all the philosophers attempted to get outside the Kantian
system without crossing the boundaries he laid down as sacrosanct. In the end, it
was Husserl who managed to do this by inventing another dimension that is not
accounted for in Kant’s metaphysic. Husserl can cross in and out of the Kantian
base system without crossing the boundary, but by subverting it in a way that does
not directly violate its integrity. The openly-closed system is a model of this kind
of higher dimensional bypass. We say that neg-entropy occurs in the dissipative
system, and that it orders itself. But no one asks where that order comes from.
Order pours into the system from where? We know disorder pours into the
environment from the dissipative system, but we do not know where the order
actually comes from. Well, it comes from the flaw in spacetime which is the
interface between spacetime and higher dimensional spaces or between the real
numbers and their mirror image. Order flows from a singularity. In the case of
Plato’s Laws, it is the lawgiver who is a singular human. In the case of dissipative
system, it is from a catastrophic twist in the chemical structure that produces the
seed of the pattern which comes to dominate within the boundary of the system.
Each dissipative system has a special boundary. That boundary acts as a filter,
allowing only passage one way or controlling the passage of materials between the
system and the environment in more complex asymmetrical ways. The asymmetry
is seen as the notion that the mobius strip has only one side globally but two sides
locally. And the same is true of the edges. This asymmetry, which allows one
boundary to play two roles at any given point, is the basis of filtering which allows
the entropy to flow one way and not the other. The singularity at the center that
allows order to rush into the system is balanced by the filtering boundary that
allows entropy to pass but conserves order. The singularity at the center of the
616
openly-closed system and the twisted boundary work together to define the regions
of the inside and the outside of the system in terms of the nihilistic opposition of too
much order and too little order.
We notice that the fifth stage is opposite the third stage in the unfolding of the
methodological distinctions. We note that the formal-structural system cannot
capture the Fourth of the system concept that arises as a synthesis out of the two
thirds of algebra and logic. At most, the formal-structural system, by applying
different structures, can define the singularities within the aggregate that embodies
the whole. Then the Fourthness, as order, pours in upon the aggregate from the
singularity and thus gives it a wholeness greater than the sum of its parts. The
formal-structural system is the opposite of the dissipative system. The dissipative
system is a simple neg-entropic dynamic which is equivalent to the rotations in
four-dimensional space that can together make possible perpetual motion. The
complex twist, the mobius strip, when set in motion, gives us a stable dynamic base
that does not exist in ordinary dynamical systems. That stability comes form the
appearance of reversibility of the motion around the singularity. The complex
numbers are a very special representation of the interval with its phases. The real
part is one phase, and the imaginary part is the other phase of this interval. Here the
interval is built into the deep structure of the algebra and not just posited as part of
the features of the numbers themselves. Complexity completes the formal-
structural system by introducing the interval’s reversiblitiy into the structure of the
algebra. This lets us see that systems with multiple overlapping structures may
become openly-closed, and thus have sources of order within them. These sources
of order are seen by the Catalyst viewpoint. But to the formal structural system,
they are merely nodes of pure immanence, of what can never appear which, like the
unconscious, orders conscious contents through the action of differing and diferring
of DifferAnce.
The complex algebra is a halfway house between the system and the meta-system.
It is not clear if it deserves its own ontological emergent category. It is a system
and not yet a meta-system. But what is important is that it is a system with a very
special dynamic. It cannot be said to order itself. Instead, order appears from
nowhere at the center of the dissipative system and spreads within its boundary.
Entropy moves through its filtering boundary and disorders the environment more
than it might normally be to compensate for the addition of order form nowhere
inside the system. The difference between too much order inside the system and
too much disorder outside is a nihilistic opposition that is important to note.
617
Figure 112:
Figure 37
Formalism
First Third proto-Twist
+ =?= *
Axioms Algebra difference
(1) (4) between
proof synergy addition and
whole greater multiplication
becomes
(2) than sum of reversibility
parts with the complex
simplification -> gestalt numbers.
(3)
Fourth structural
synthesis system
(explanatory)
(1)
First
Third real numbers
Logic STAGE FOUR
Formalism considered as (5)
independent
isolated
entities
without a closed
founded algebra STAGE FIVE
Twist Complex
~~x=x
reversibility Numbers
full twist
four-dimensional rotation
dissipative system
openly-closed system
(1) TwoThirds cannot capture all the aspects of a Fourth

(2) A Fourth cannot be reduced to axioms; thus systems do not have grounds and cannot ground themselves. reversibility
(3) Even a structural system, which is weaker than a formal system cannot capture the Fourth
(4) A Fourth is a whole greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. a gestalt. (A system is a gestalt.)
(5) The proved unfoundeness of the real number system leads to the consideration of other algebras.
x ~x
real complex
Godel’s proof: ~
The act of combining algebra and logic in order to ground the combined system by reduction sqr(-1)
is exactly what prevents the grounding by reduction. This is the same as the quantum effect of observability. + (add) == * (mult)
Logic appears at this level in some of its characteristics. The double negative is a
similar kind of structure ~~X = X is analogous to the i2 = -1 (transposing symbols -
-> ~2i /1= i /1; this is not to say that these symbols are meaningful, but only that the
elements are isomorphic for a reason). We add to this the ability of logic to prove,
based on impossibility and the excluded middle, and we have the strong
conventional logic which is equally as blind as it is strong. We see that the kind of
logic that belongs at level four is intuitionistic logic that does not allow proof by
impossibility and perhaps that tempered by reconsideration of excluded middle.
But our conventional logic, which we owe to Aristotle, definitely fits at this fifth
618
stage of our unfolding systems theory. So when the algebra is connected to the
logic in Godel’s proof, we are actually getting some cross talk between the pure
Third of Algebra and conventional logic, which are at different stages. But then
again, we can see that Algebra has the reversible structures of multiplication and
addition where 12 =1 or 0+0=0. We note that it is this difference between the
operations of addition and multiplication that the complex numbers are meant to
solve. A negative multiplied by a negative gives a positive. The complex allows
negative numbers to be generated by multiplication of the same number by itself.
This reduced the difference between addition and multiplication operations. So we
begin to wonder if both of these Thirds (both Algebra and Logic) are not, to some
extent, contaminated with the reversibility that becomes apparent in the complex
numbers. Reversibility in general is what appears at this point in the infolding of
the minimal system on itself. Reversibility is the essential precursor of reflexivity.
Reversiblity is also in the form of the Chiasm, the essential structure of Wild Being.
Here we have some of the inherent structure opaquely embedded in the Real
numbers manifesting itself. This gets taken up and expressed in the logical and
algebraic systems that manipulate these numbers or logical symbols. It also
embodies, to some degree, what it is within the Algebra/Logic complex that cannot
be reduced to axioms. Axioms are purely present at hand. If the system of algebra/
logic could be reduced to the axioms, then we would be able to say that no other
kinds of Being are necessary because everything can be expressed as a function of
Pure Presence.
The production of extra dimensions is the dual of the production of singularities. In

some sense, the extra dimensions of four and higher dimensional space are the
inward structures of the complex singularity i. The singularity is at the heart of the
dissipative system. Through it, information pours into the system from the inside
instead of entropy from the outside. As a result, entropy pours into the environment
from the dissipative system. The information pouring into the system, which is
perceived as increased ordering, comes from higher dimensional spaces or through
higher dimensional spaces from lower dimensional spaces, thus circumventing
boundary crossing at lower dimensionalities. The flow of information into the
dissipative system balances the flow of entropy out of the dissipative system into
the environment across the system boundary. We can see this structure in Greek
cities where they have an acropolis at the center, where the gods reside, and a wall
at the periphery. The gods are a source of order that pours into the city though
oracles and other actions of the gods. The gods of the city order the state of affairs
within the boundaries of the city. The city goes to war against other cities, and thus
619
creates higher concentrations of entropy outside its boundaries in order to increase

the order inside its boundaries. The city is open to a higher dimension inwardly,
like the openly-closed system that discovers anomalies within itself due to the
wrinkles in the application of several different structural systems. In both cases,
these singularities or anomalies, are sources of information which do not come from
outside in the normal way, i.e. crossing the outer boundary of the system. But a
system with an internal twist like this one, an Escher waterfall-like structure inside,
is still a system and is not yet a meta-system.
When we open up four-dimensional space, we notice that the simplest figure in this
space is the four-dimensional pentahedron. That structure we have already
identified with the simplest possible autopoietic system. There are four views we
can take of that structure:
• Pentagrams
• Pentahedral Lattice (1-5-10-10-5-1)
• Kleinian Bottle
• 5 groups of order twenty
In the previous essays, we explored that structure in depth. It is mentioned here to

point out that the fifth point that makes that figure possible can be considered as a
singularity within the minimal system. If we posit that there is a higher dimensional
space, then that point becomes offset into that dimensionality, and the pentahedral
figure forms. But if we just consider it as embedded within the minimal system,
then it becomes the anomaly that defines the openly-closed or the dissipative
system. It stands for the complexity of the Real space. Real space cannot be
considered apart form its algebras and the logic we use to make proofs and
simplifications. Within the minimal system embedded in real space, a gap opens
up, and we describe that gap using complex numbers to relate real space to the
singularity at the center of the minimal system. As soon as that singularity appears,
we can hypothesize that there is a higher dimensional space where that singularity is
just part of the mathematical structure, and, in fact, we unfold higher dimensional
space from that singularity. We discover that mathematical structure of higher
dimensions has its own complexity and structure. In fact, topologists find that four-
dimensional space, unlike any other, have an infinite number of “fake” topologies
instead of the expected finite number of minimal surfaces. Four-dimensional space
has a surprising complexity that is counter-intuitive. It is the formalization of
spacetime, so it is the space in which we actually live.
620
We have posited in earlier essays that the autopoietic system has as its minimal
structure the form of the pentahedron and that each of the views of that structure is a
meaningful aspect of the autopoietic system. This minimal structure is the
autopoietic ring made up of five phases and five singularities. Each phase contains
a minimal system, so the pentahedral lattice relates the five Hsing to the four
elements of the minimal system to produce the 20 relations between celestial and
terrestrial elements. The pentagrams are attached as values to these 20 possible
relations, and the five groups of order 20 signify the orbits of these 20 possible
relations. Thus, the autopoietic system has a very specific structure that appears the
moment the singularity embedded in the minimal system moves out into the fourth
dimension to establish its own realm and unfolds its implicit mathematical
relations. However, given the structure of the autopoietic system, we have still not
established the operations by which it organizes itself. To do that, we must move to
the next stage of the unfolding of the foundations of autopoietic system theory.
The pentahedron may be considered as a model of the static structure of the

synergetic Fourth. This means it is a model of the static autopoietic system.
However, the autopoietic system is not completely static, but is instead, endlessly
dynamic as it strives to organize itself. Therefore, no dissipative system can model
the autopoietic system because it has features that go beyond the openly-closed or
dissipative system. It is necessary to go further in order to capture these dynamic
aspects of the autopoietic system in our model.
23.5. Stage Six
Once we have opened up Pandora’s box and begin considering other algebras of the
kind which gives us the complex numbers, then we can ask whether there are any
more higher algebras of the same kind. It turns out that there are only two higher
algebras of the same kind. The next highest hyper-complex number is the
quarternions which, in effect, double the Complex numbers producing three
singularities i, j, k that are related to each other in terms of the quarternion group.
This is, in fact, the group that relates the four axes of four-dimensional space to
eachother. Four-dimensional space is four three-dimensional spaces with the axes
related through the quarternion group operations to eachother. Many times i, j and
k are used as the axes of three-dimensional space so that rotations of vectors can
revolve around them as if they were being displaced through four-dimensional
space instead of the axes. For us, the quarternions are very important in that they
unite the structure of four-dimensional space with the singularities inherent in the
real numbers considered from the point of view of algebra. With the quarternions,
621
we say that algebra is a general structure for dealing with many different sets of
numbers like the real numbers, and that these sets of numbers have a very specific
interrelation to each other. In fact, we say that the sets of numbers real, i, j and k
form a minimal system of phases, and that there are four singularities 1, i, j and k
that generate these phases that each contain positive and negative real-like numbers.
So we see here that the singularities are like the points in the tetrahedron, and the
number phases (positive and negative) are like the four triangular faces of the
tetrahedron. Only here, these are related to eachother via the quarternion group
which is the structure operated like two four-dimensional rotations on the real
numbers and its cognates. This gives us a very strange inner structure for the
minimal system.
However, we must go beyond this formulation because we note that as suggested in

the last essay this quarternion, space is embedded in the pentahedron as the fine
structure of the Kleinian bottle. We realize that this means that August Stern’s
Matrix Logic has an inner quarternion structure that aligns with the truth values of
Matrix Logic and the eigenvalues of the Matrices of the logic themselves. We posit
that the inner structure of the autopoietic system as a set of operators is identical
with Matrix Logic, and that this is embedded within the pentahedral structure of the
minimal autopoietic system. We note that Matrix Logic introduces the third truth
value (-1, neither... nor...) but suppresses the fourth truth value (2, both...and). By
this suppression it generates the 81 operations of matrix logic rather than collapsing
back into the sixteen mod 2 logic operations. This introduces the Third again at a
higher level. We have seen that the Third has already failed to subdue the
synergetic system due to Godel’s proof. At this higher level, we see that a
composite picture of the synergetic system is produced from the combination of the
pentahedron with its views and Matrix Logic. Matrix Logic is simultaneously a
formal and a structural system. As such, it has special claims to being able to model
the synergetic Fourth. We claim that the combination of the outward structure of
the pentahedron and the inward operational structure of matrix logic as the fine
structure of the Kleinian bottle which represents the four-dimensional rotations
within the autopoietic structure, give an exact model of the synergetic Fourth.
Thus, what logic and algebra failed to capture is exactly captured by Matrix Logic
that includes within itself Matrix Algebra and a more robust form of logic that has
embedded, within it, conventional logic. The fact that the Fourth cannot be reduced
to axioms still holds. But we can model the whole dynamic autopoietic system in
terms of these two mathematical structures acting together in a non-reductionist
mode of thought which recognizes the independent reality of autopoietic systems as
622
a threshold of complexity and activity that is very useful for modeling the living/
cognitive, which is to say, secondary processes with intentionality and
independence within the world.
The dynamic autopoietic system is the archetype of the meta-system. We connect

the meta-system to this level of the unfolding of autopoietic systems theory. The
meta-system is a meta-showing and hiding of gestalts, and we will call it a “show.”
In fact, it is a five-ring circus in which multiple showings and hidings are going on
simultaneously. It is an entertainment system with multiple simultaneous channels.
Meta-systems set rules within which systems function autonomously. Thus, meta-
systems are formulations of order independent from the autonomous beings that
maintain and abide by that order. Meta-systems allow multiple independent things
to be going on simultaneously. Sophisticated operating systems with independent
threads of execution such as UNIX, qualify as meta-systems. There are a myriad
different possibilities for meta-systems, but as they impose more and more order,
they approach the limit of being a system. As they allow more and more
independence with respect to more and more realms of action and perception, they
approach the limit of being a world. The autopoietic system is merely an
idealization of the meta-system that contains exactly five minimal systems which
are highly synergistically integrated. This is to say that meta-systems have different
levels of harmony according to Chang’s levels of harmony (logical, interactive,
mutual support and interpenetration). The autopoietic system has interpenetrating
harmony. Thus the autopoietic system is actually a meta-system with the highest
degree of harmony possible. This makes the autopoietic system a model of the
Holoid. Except it is a model that stands away from complete fusion. It is a model
of transcendence, grounding itself, in which we can still see the structure of
belonging together or the returning of the Same.
The autopoietic system imposes order on itself. It is a network of processes that

produce the components out of which it is itself comprised, and then maintains its
own organization as a homeostatic variable by replacing itself with those
components it has itself produced. The autopoietic system is thus a network of
elements that together do ordering and do producing. The archetypal example is the
living cell. Autopoietic theory sees the living cell as having a cognitive component,
and that the cognitive component is fused with the living component in the cell.
The cognitive component is associated with the ordering of the cell by itself. The
producing component makes the sub-components of the cell itself which it uses to
maintain itself. The ordering component controls growth, reproduction, the
623
metabolism and a myriad of the functions of the cell that together allow it to live. In
higher animals, this ordering component becomes cognition. There is a relativistic
point that as observers of other living/cognitive autopoietic systems, we project our
intentions on that system. Our projections may be far from the actual internal
intentions of the cognitive/living autopoietic system under observation. So we must
carefully distinguish the outward expression of cognition in terms of projected
intentions from the internal intentions of the autonomous system. But there is no
doubt that the autopoietic system, in every case, has its own reasons that our reason
may not be able to understand.
We are not actually saying that this network of nodes that makes up the autopoietic
system is a pentahedral structure. That network of the nodes in the autopoietic
machine will vary depending on the kind of machine it is. We are not even saying
that the pentahedron is the only such structure. In fact, we posit that there are
similar structures in every higher dimensionality that may be higher order
autopoietic rings. The pentahedron is merely the minimal autopoietic ring
structure. The autopoietic ring is the connection between the cognitive element and
the living element. In other words, the autopoietic ring in the pentahedral structure
allows there to be five singularities and five minimal systems. Components of the
autopoietic system must be arranged in systems. The minimal formation of these
systems of components (eventities) appears as the phases of the pentahedral
formation. The singularities that contain the cognitive component have a specific
relation with these minimal systems of components. The pentahedral ring specifies
these relations between the cognitive singularities from which order comes the
minimal systems of components that represent the organization of the autopoietic
system that it is imposing on itself. So the ring structure is very important to the
structure of the autopoietic system connecting its cognitive aspect to its living
aspect. This structure can be arbitrarily complex. Higher dimensional autopoietic
rings merely increase this complexity, but also increase synergy. For instance, the
fifth dimensional equivalent of the pentahedron, called the hexahedron, which has
the lattice 1-6-15-30-15-6-1, has 15 tetahedral structures but six four-dimensional
structures which connect them. Thus, we immediately go from five minimal
systems to 15. And as we go up the Pascal triangle, these numbers grow
exponentially. The pentahedron has a single four-dimensional structure to connect
is five minimal systems. The next ring up the ladder of higher dimensional spaces
have six higher dimensional structures to connect 15 instead of the three you might
expect. Complexity grows exponentially. This complexity grows to accommodate
the high degree of harmony in these systems. We know that the autopoietic system
624
is a logical unity. But it is a unity with structure. It has not collapsed to identity in
fusion without structure. It is a unity just prior to the collapse into unity without
structure signified by Conceptual Being. That structure that it has must embody all
the kinds of harmony. It is logical because the autopoietic system is closed. Like
logic itself, it is a closed formal system. All its actions are in terms of itself. It has
interactive harmony because all its nodes interact to produce its self-organization.
It has mutual support because the cognitive singularities order the component
minimal systems acting together so the different parts of the system support
eachother. So we see that it is at the level of mutual support that the relations
between cognitive singularities and components in minimal systems becomes
important. Finally, it has interpenetration because of the synergy based on the
Pascal triangle where multiple organizational elements are made out of the same
materials. This reuse of elements of the organization to produce more complex
structures is the hallmark of interpenetration. It signifies a deep and sophisticated
ordering of the organization which is built into the nature of things and is specified
in a mathematical way as lattices and may be interpreted as geometrical objects in
higher dimensional space. This interpenetration of elements, where one element
enters into the definition of another element but does not collapse into identity, is a
very important feature of the universe and mind which comes from the connection
between the living and the cognitive in the autopoietic system. It is not that we
discover mathematics as a realm of ideas separate from who we are as living
thinking beings. Instead, in mathematics, we discover the inherent connection
between the cognitive and the living within ourselves, and project it as part of the
universe or mental forms. But in fact, it is the inner structure of our cognitive life.
It has a beauty and elegance that is hard to deny. That comes from within us as
human beings. But the whole question revolves around how we interpret that
resource within ourselves that connects the cognitive to life. We can interpret it as
solid geometry as the Greeks did, and introduce opacity. Or we can interpret it as
higher and higher thresholds of complexity in the unfolding of binary systems that
are transparent permutations of opposites. The choice is up to us. The same Pascal
triangle may be interpreted both ways. It is the difference between the view that
there is a material substrate to everything that is independent of us as cognitive-
living beings, and the view which we can follow Loy in that the phenomenological
reality is prior to the material substrate. Phenomenology is prior to the material,
and the social is prior to the phenomenological. We really need to understand the
social if we are to understand the autopoietic system correctly. However, the social
introduces many factors that are clearly not present in many living systems. It is
basically a new emergent level, and we are fortunate to find that there is another
625
level in our hierarchy of algebras that can support the existence of a structure higher
than the cognitive-living autopoietic system.
23.6. Stage Seven
The next stage is where the Quarternion algebra is doubled again to give the Cayley
algebra. This adds four new singularities and effectively doubles the Quarternion
structure. The new singularities are called I, J, K and e. The e singularity produces
another limit like the real number system is to the complex and quarternion
numbers. Each successive algebra has a weaker division property, and the Cayley
has the weakest. The Cayley algebra is, in effect, the production of a mirror image
of the Quarternion algebra. The mirroring of the quarternion allows the cognitive-
living autopoietic system to reflect on itself. Self-reflexion is the next higher stage
from self-organization. Essentially, this self-reflexion allows the social autopoietic
system to change its ordering and experience emergence, which means radical
reordering of the system.
To repeat this in other way: the Cayley algebraic structure is the mathematical basis
for the Reflexive Autopoietic system. This structure is equivalent to the Social level
of emergent phenomena. In it, the quarternion meta-system looks at itself, and thus
can not only organize itself, but make up new orders to follow. Thus, it is at this
level that emergent events are defined and are, in fact, the basis of the social, or vice
versa as G.H. Mead intuited.
The Cayley algebraic structure is the basis for the projection of worlds. Above the
meta-system, the next level of emergent category is the World. The social system
projects the world based on its reflexivity which radiates among its members in a
seemingly infinite ramification of reflecting images between members of the social
group.
It is at this level that Stern defines the Hyper-logical operators. This is the level that
computation would occur in his system where multiple (four) matrix logic elements
are fractally combined. This computational structure is a group, and there is only
one group with an order of 20 that contains a Quarternion. That group corresponds
to the 24 cell polytope in four-dimensional space. Only four-dimensional space has
such a structure, and it corresponds to a direct mapping from the Hypercube to the
Hyperoctahedron which only exists in four-dimensional space. This suggests that
the 24 cell polytope is the inner structure of the social operations that are a sui-
generis reality over and above the operations of matrix logic alone. Reflected
626
matrix logic has group properties that overcome the forbidden operations. All
hyper logic operators have a complete set of operations which allow this
computational form to go beyond the blockages of the forbidden operations of
matrix logic without abrogating them, forming a whole group structure. This meta-
meta-system is the social which projects a world which allows emergent events
without blockage because its structure is isomorphic with the structure of the
emergent event itself. This is probably the first rigorous definition of the level of
the social. We can connect it with what Deleuze and Guattari call the “socius.” It is
the primal ground of everything we know. Ballard called it the archaic. We turn
the normal list of emergent levels upside down and say that it is not quarks and
fundamental particles that are the basis, but instead it is the social from which all
other emergent levels devolve. Here, we are saying that the social is explicitly the
reflexivity added to the autopoietic system, but that addition comes about by
essentially a doubling of the structure of the mathematical basis for the autopoietic
ring. This takes us to a new emergent level where there is a unique mathematical
structure. It appears as the Hyper operators of Matrix logic, and it appears as the 24
cell polytope that has a lattice structure 1-24-96-96-24-1. It is a unique connection
between the hypercube and hyperoctahedeon that produces an all 4-d space filling
lattice. It gives the hypercube and the hyperoctahedron a unique
intertransformability that does not appear in any higher dimensional space.
This structure is the next higher Matrix Logic form. It subsumes Matrix Logic, and
provides us with a very complex Meta-Matrix Logic. As such, it gives an additional
layer of inner coherence to Matrix Logic itself which is not blocked by the
forbidden operations. Thus, it is a group structure where every pair of hyper-
operations taken together gives us another hyper-operation within the group
structure. This hyper-operator is composed of four Matrix Logic operators in a
larger matrix with a four value vector as input and as output. We can think of this
hyper-operator as the simultaneous interacting logical computations of two
independent agents. This combination of logical agents gives the social dimension
to this Hyper-logic.
627
Figure 113:
VOID
i, j, k, e, I, J, K Catlyst
First
Cayley/Octanion Requirements
Axioms
24 Cell Polytope
social/reflexive autopoietic
i, j, k
Third
Clifford/Quaternion Formalism
hypercube/hyperocta Agent Function
cognitive/living / standard autopietic
eidetics
i abduction
Complex PO+D Concept L
pentahedron minimal Fourth minimal
methods methods
dissipative template template
openly-closed
structuralism
Designated as
n Data Event
R REAL
Second
illusory continuity
open and closed systems
The reflexive autopoietic system has the ability to re-organize itself rather than to
628
merely organize itself. For instance, the cell has its organizational trajectory laid
out for it by its DNA patterning. Social autopoietic systems can change that
patterning to produce a different trajectory. For instance, Beer talks about the Boss
as giving closure to the corporation. The Boss is the one who decides which avenue
will be taken. But the Boss can look at the situation and decide to do something
completely different than anything the meta-systems of the organization suggest.
This ability for the Boss to reflect and change the entire patterning of the
organization based on the outcome of that reflection without recourse to any laid
down patterning, such as the cell’s DNA, is what we are talking about here. Of
course, redirection by a single lawmaker acting as a tyrant is only one example of
how a repatterning might come about. Another way is for the group to reach
consensus that a change is necessary. But however this change comes about, or is
instituted it is only social systems that are able to effect such changes in their
internal organization with such freedom. All the normal autopoietic systems cannot
do this unless they are preprogrammed with different modes. For instance, the
transformation of a caterpillar into a moth is a catastrophic pattern change. But it
was pre-programmed into the basic patterning of the organism. The organism did
not decide to change itself into something completely different. The same is the
case with human beings. We cannot change our bodies at will except by external
means. But a society can change its basic characteristics of organization in radical
ways by altering the ways individuals interact and even altering which individuals
fulfill specific roles in the organization. Society is a meta-organization of creatures.
If we consider bee hives, we see that the beehive itself is, in some sense, an
organism and it is not truly social because it cannot repattern itself. The
transformation of the hive from sedative to flying is an example of a
preprogrammed change which occurs given certain circumstances. Everything the
bees do as separate organisms is prepatterned. So we cannot call them social in the
sense specific to reflexive autopoietic systems.
When we connect emergence, the social, reflexivity, the 24 cell four-dimensional

polytope and Hyper Matrix Logic to the Cayley numbers, what are we really
saying?
First, we are saying that our autopoietic system’s theory clearly distinguishes the
level of the autopoietic system from the reflexive autopoietic system. This is
important because there has been a lot of argument whether social systems are, in
fact, autopoietic. Our position has been that they are a special case of an autopoietic
system which is, in turn, a special case of a dissipative system that is, in turn, a kind
629
of a system. Being able to generate all possible kinds of relations between

eventities or system components in minimal systems is the main reason for
appealing to methodological distinctions and hypercomplex algebras. These
mathematical objects structure the way we look at the phenomena. When we see
that the Cayley, like all the series of hypercomplex numbers, are produced by
“doubling,” we see that there is some sense to the concept of an autopoietic system
looking at itself in reflexion through this mirroring of the quarternion. The
quarternion is a mirroring of the complex numbers. Thus, an autopoietic system is,
in some sense the combination of two dissipative (openly-closed) systems. The
dissipative system is somehow a combination of an open and a closed system. The
doubling allows us to relate the generation of these more complex kinds of special
purpose systems to the symmetry, breaking progressive bisection of complex
dynamical systems on their way to chaos. In this case, the symmetry breaking only
goes to eight states. Only eight singularities are produced which are the eight
artificial intelligence techniques, the eight paradoxes in the software layer. These
eight singularities may be read as producers of higher dimensionalities. As such,
we can see that at the level of the Cayley algebra, a unique aspect of four-
dimensional space to turn in on itself becomes apparent. The hypercube and
hyperoctahedron have a special kind of symmetry that revolves around the 24 cell
polytope. It is this special symmetry that is made use of by Hyper Matrix Logic
with its group structure of order 24. This special property of the Hyper Matrix
Logic, or the 24-cell polytope, is the ability to invert inwardly as well as outwardly.
If we represent the minimal system as a quarternion group with four singularities
being the four eventities of the minimal system, then we see that the quarternion can
involute using the rotations of four-dimensional space inwardly. The addition of
the Cayley allows a similar involution outwardly. Thus, the ultimate view of the
minimal system is that it is possible to combine four-dimensional rotations, both
inward and outward in the same structure. This structure is a kind of double
perpetual motion machine. It is a perpetual motion machine whose perpetuity is
tracked by a second perpetual motion machine. The perpetual motion machine
tracks itself and can follow itself. This is the essential nature of reflexivity. It is
social because it is two intertwined perpetual motion machines; two intertwined
autopoietic systems locked in an embrace. Here, the cognitive sub-system is
disconnected from the living sub-system but mirrors it perfectly. The production of
the inverse autopoietic system allows the system to model itself internally. Or we
can see it as two autopoietic systems where the cognitive and living aspects are still
interembedded. The two together operate in perfect harmony. It is a marriage.
And it is the prototype of all social relations where the mutual mirroring between
630
two intertwined autopoietic systems produces a whole greater than the two meta-
systems together. This meta-meta-system must be a world. This archetypal
marriage, intertwined autopoietic rings, is the foundation of the world. The well
and the tree, or the pen and the tablet -- in the primal scene, the duality is an image
of this marriage. So we see that marriage is somehow the fundamental non-
nihilistic distinction. It is symbolized in the rings couples wear, but it goes very
deep as a fundamental non-nihilistic distinction that founds the world by
establishing the basic social relation from which all other social relations emerge. It
is different from sex together or living together. It is a contract which Mithra and
Varuna guard, and they can guard it because they know how to break it. It is an
unseen relationship which is founded on the inner possibility of essential harmony.
This is not harmony of something with itself we saw in the autopoietic system, but
harmony with another which is like the self only different. It is the harmony of two
selves intertwined who belong together and are the Same. This harmony with the
other is what the whole of the Western tradition violates in many deep ways. It is a
harmony with the other through the realization that the other is ultimately the self.
When I make a model of the other, it turns out to be a model of myself. I am the
Other. But this does not just mean I am alienated from my self. It also means that
there is a possibility of a harmony with the other that I can strive for which is the
basis of the social and is represented by the internally and externally involuting
minimal system.
Marriage is not a constant relation. Marriage can be repatterned by those involved

in it. My partner and I can look at ourselves together and decide that we are going
to do things differently together. I cannot get this reflection looking at my own
behavior because I have a distorted view of my own behavior that is different from
that of a significant other to whom I am married. This is different again from any
other significant other’s view of my behavior or any non-significant other.
The epitome of the formalism of this highest level of special systems theory is the
use of Minkowoski spacetime to explain relativistic information by Jumarie. In this
version of spacetime, two subjects observing the same system would, in fact,
observe different information. Jumarie uses the concepts of special theory of
relativity to work out the invariants by showing what each observer would observe
through the other observer in comparison with what he/she would observe from his/
her own inertial frame. When two observers are observing simultaneously the same
thing, then the upper left and lower right quadrants of the Hyper logic matrix of four
matrix logic operators are all that is used so that the observations are orthogonal.
631
This possibility of orthogonality of observations, and the distortion of information

by multiple observers, is the basic framework for the investigation of
intersubjectivity. In intersubjective viewing of a system, there are certain
transforms by which one subjective viewpoint can be transformed into another.
Stern treats the causal chain within the light cones in terms of positive and negative
logics. These two views, when put together, give us a powerful tool for
understanding the relation of subjects to the same system by their relativistic warps
of information. Matrix Logic gives us the means to understand the temporal aspect
of causal chains within the unfolding of the worldlines. The anti-logic gives us
access to a structuralism within the formalism of Matrix Logic which is a model of
the relation of the light cones to nowhere. So together, Matrix Logic and
Relativistic Information Systems theory gives us a means of analyzing
intersubjective phenomena on a solid formal-structural footing.
The reflexive autopoietic system is not homeostatic, but proactive and projecting.
As Heidegger says, it is ecstatic, pro-jecting the world. Its nature is that of Dasein.
Instead of homeostatic, we could say hetrodynamic. The reflexive autopoietic
system is constantly producing a heterogeneous variety of differences that make a
difference. It is in constant dynamic. Because for anything to remain in one place
in spacetime, it must move, specifically in circles of 4pi which make it static to all
frames of reference. So in order to stand still, the reflexive autopoietic system must
keep moving. We can say that the Cayley algebra is more general than the Clifford
which is, in turn, more general than the Complex so that the social level is more
general than the autopoietic which is, in turn, more general than the dissipative.
More general in the sense that the social gives rise to the individual. Individuals
cannot function without a social milieu and concretely embody that social milieu.
Individuals function as organizers or disorganizers of their situations. The
dissipative context of the individual is the situation. The individual’s situatedness
is socially defined. Deleuze and Guattari speak of the socius and the desiring
machines. The desiring machines are the partial situations which may be positively
or negatively entropic. The individual, from his/her perspective, is an
epiphenomenon of the connection between the desiring machines that are the
intersections of multiple overlapping situations and the socius that is the social
context in which all situations are embedded. We do not go so far in denying reality
to the individual. The individual is the autopoietic unity with its cognitive
(functional) and autonomous (agent) components. All cognitive intentions function
within a situation, and all actions of the agent occur within the situation. It is only
in the situation that the individual desiring machines come into play. We take these
632
myriad situations that form the patchwork of our lives and attempt to produce a
narrative or a designated-as-real illusory continuity. So we can see that from one
point of view it is the socius and the situations in which desiring machines manifest
that are real. But normally, in the common sense world, it is the individual and his
life narrative that is real. Different theories will emphasis two and de-emphasize
the other two levels and vice versa. But when we realize the parallelism between
the Cayley formation and the First Catalyst viewpoint, then we say that the Catalyst
viewpoint holds the position of the generalized other of Mead. The Thirds of
Function and Agent are opposite the Clifford formation which is equivalent to the
autopoietic system. These viewpoints are the cognitive and the embodiment of the
living individual in their reversibility. They express the ability to formulate formal
systems, either as algebras or logics. The algebra counts the individuals. And what
is countable is deemed real. The logic verifies the truth of the individuals. The
cognitive (functional/intentional) and the autonomous (agent/existence as isolated
individual) aspects form a wave particle duality. This form of belonging together is
a weak kind of identity with difference built in. Opposite the dissipative system is
the Conceptual Fourth. It is constrained by the structural system and confined by
the set of minimal methods, but is not captured by any of these. Thus, the
Conceptual Fourth which has a complexity analogous to the Cayley formation, is
diagonal to it. The simple-to-complex movement is opposite on the two sides of the
diagram. The concept appears as a view of what is beyond the singularity at the
center of the openly-closed system. It is like the otherworldly forms of Plato. It is
the non-capturable synergy that is the source of order that pours into the dissipative
system through the singularity to order the system. The simplicity of the dissipative
system points to the complexity of the synergetic un-capturable eidetic abductive
Fourth of the System Concept or System Design. This is interesting because the
same is true of the relation between the Catalyst and the Cayley formation. The
simplicity of the First, which is the Generalized Other, is balanced by the
complexity of the minimal social, i.e. reflexive, system. These two sides to the
diagram are duals of each other. They form a complex interval with the point of
reversibility being the illusory continuity of the real numbers, and the limits being
on both ends the void. Each phase has its own sub-interval, in the one case being
expressed in terms of algebra formations, and in the other in terms of
methodological distinctions. The Quarternion formation and the Thirds of Function
and Agent are the points of reversibility in these sub-phases. The Quarternion
formation expresses how the autopoietic system can connect the function and agent
aspects together in a wavicle or wave/particle unity. This is made possible by the
existence of four-dimensional rotations that make possible perpetual motion in
633
higher dimensional spaces. The autopoietic system can ground itself or cause itself
with this very efficient higher dimensional causation. Because we are four-
dimensional creatures, we can harmonize our processes to approximate these
rotations which is done by setting up resonances. We can only do it through time,
not in the frozen presentation of space which is seen as present-at-hand only. It
takes all four kinds of Being to effectively produce this perfect rotation of the
temporal gestalt, and that is why the four kinds of Being are necessary within the
autopoietic system as the levels through which self-grounding Being passes, and
this is why the autopoietic system has the structure of the emergent event. It does
not experience emergent events from the outside because it is a closed self
activating emergent event.
The eight singularities correspond to the eight kinds of artificial intelligence

techniques which are hypothesized to be the paradoxes in the software layer. They
correspond also to the eight trigrams from the I Ching which appear in Sidi Ali al-
Jamal as the permutations of inward/outward, sensory/meaning, and Celestial/
Terrestrial. These eight points which appear as the singularities are the
counterpoint to the 24 cell polytope. They are central to human cognition of the
universe. As kinds of artificial techniques, they are opaque and as trigrams, they
are transparent. This is the difference between the binary and the triadic ways of
viewing the world. We see that the progression from complex to quarternion to
Cayley numbers produces a progressive bisection of singularities. These
singularities operate as a system to organize the world. If that system is viewed
through the flawed lens of logic that relies on the Third, then the result is
paradoxical singularities in the layer of software minimal methods. If, on the other
hand, the world is viewed as merely a myriad of opposites, then these singularities
become merely the points of confluence of opposites as the basic opposites are
permuted.
23.7. The Void
The four eventities arose out of the void, and because there are no higher
hypercomplex algebras, we again encounter the void as the unthinkability of what
lies beyond the Cayley algebra. We can think of the seven stages of autopoietic
systems theory as being like the seven chakras. They are thresholds of complexity
of the unfolding of the big man, which is Das Mann, the They or the preconscious
social which projects the world before we are even aware of it as individuals, before
we even become individuals. The world is there, discovered as the medium in
which we discover our humanity. We can turn it into the uni-verse or the
634
totalitarian single song everyone must sing, or we can discover it as a window on a

pluriverse that contains a myriad of worlds arising and returning to a single source.
That source is unthinkable, unrepresentable, unassociateable with anything we
know. All we see is endless worlds, meta-systems, systems, forms, primitives
flowing out of the void.
Appendix A: Coverage
{See end of chapter for diagramic defintions of RSTU}
The derivation of the minimal methods has two distinct sets. The first shows that
each of the basic embodiments have all the aspects of spacetime encoded within
them so that they can be seen to be real embodiments. The second step is to show
that combinations of the bais emboiments serve as substrate for the different
minimal methods. This appendix will show the first step where coverage of
spacetime attributes are shown for each embodiment.
24. r embodiment
This embodiment follows information through a network of variables.
24.1. Correlation
Between values at t0 and t1 = strength of relation.
24.2. /Cause
Causal link strong uniderectional correlation between variables and values.
24.3. Value
A representation of an intensity from a set of possible values.
24.4. Variable
Two holders for a specific representation.
24.5. Duration
How long a value remains the same.
24.6. Moment
The minimal amount of time a value remains the same.
635
24.7. Boundary
Critical values at which some meta-change occurs if that value is crossed.
24.8. Limit
Discrete ends of possible values for moment and overall.
Figure 114:
duration moment duration moment

moment moment
variable variable
value change value
V t0 correlation V t1
r
cause
boundary
limit limt
vvvvvvvvvv
0
current
1
all possible values within limts
value
window of current possible values
25. s embodiment
This embodiment compares the differences between two variables.
25.1. Correlation
Between two variable’s values = strength of relation.
25.2. /Cause
Causal link between variable’s values.
25.3. Value
A representation of an intensity.
25.4. Variable
Holder fora representation.
25.5. Duration
How long a value remains unchanged.
25.6. Moment
The minimal time a value may remain the same.
636
25.7. Boundary
Critical values at which some meta-change occurs if tha value is crossed.
25.8. Limit
Discrete ends fo possible valuse for moment and overall.
Figure 115:
change duration moment

change moment
variable variable
value correlation value
V t0 Wt0
change cause change
limit
Vt1
boundary
Wt1
s limt
all possible values within limts
vvvvvvvvvv
current
value
window of current possible values
26. t embodiment
This embodiment looks at multiple transitions of design elements related to a
single global state.
26.1. Correlation
Between macro state and micro state.
26.2. /Cause
Actions that occur during state change.
26.3. Value
State representation at global level for a duration.
26.4. Variable
Holder for a representation.
26.5. Duration
Length of time a state holds at same value despite uderlying changes.
637
26.6. Moment
The minimal amount of time a state value can remain the same.
26.7. Boundary
Critical values of aggregate sub-values that cause a change of state.
26.8. Limit
The set of possible state values only these global state values are possible.
Figure 116:
moment
limit limit
duration
t value
variable
V
micro
states correlation
s
global
s state
one
s cause
boundary
ACTIONS
global
state
global
two
state
three
27. u embodiment
This embodiment looks at multiple design element states in relation to a global
transition.
638
27.1. Correlation
Between micro states.
27.2. /Cause
Global action changes that produce micro-state changes.
27.3. Value
State representation at a micro level for a duration.
27.4. Variable
Holder for a representation.
27.5. Duration
Length of time a micro state holds at the same value.
27.6. Moment
The minimal lenght of time a state value can remain the same.
27.7. Boundary
Critical values of micro-states which cause meta-changes.
27.8. Limit
Set of possible values for each micro state.
639
Figure 117:
limit limt
ssssssssss0 1
limit
current
value
boundary
correlation
variable
moment
s Vvalue
global
s
duration limit
state
one W
duration
s X
cause
s
s
u s
micro
s s states
s
Appendix B:Combinations of embodiments
This appendix will deal with the combinaitons of embodiments showing how each
combination is related to a specific minimal method or pair of methods.
640
28. s-t combination = state machine

Figure 118:
i0
s
e si so a o0
i1 o1
actions
s
state
state
state
t
28.1. Two correlated variables equals input and outpurs of state machine.
28.2. Global sate equals state of the state machine.
28.3. Multiple micro tranistions equals actions of the state machine.
29. r-u combination = petrinet
641
Figure 119:
u
colored marker
variables
state machine
of places around
a transition
places places
transition
a d
b e
c f
rule
global action
local states local states
r
information flow thorough net as whole
markers flow through network as an information flow
29.1. Flow of tokens through the net equals informaiton flow.

29.2. Micro-states are states of input and output places.
29.3. Transition equals the global action between micro-states.
642
30. s-u combination = dataflow

Figure 120:
s
correlation between input and output
i1
o1
i2
o2
03
i3
global function
turns data into information
u
30.1. Input and output variables representing data lines equals correlation between
variables.
30.2. Values of input and output variables equals microstates.
30.3. Function equals global transition.
643
31. r-t combination = darts1

Figure 121:
port
port
r
port
state state port
instruction
instruction
instruction
instruction
t
31.1. Information flow equals message flowing between taask parts.
31.2. Global state equals state of task.
1.Gomma Design and Analysis of Real Time Sstems (DARTS)
644
31.3. Micro transitions equals instructions that a task is following now.
32. s-r combination = worldlines and scenarios

Figure 122:
s
task task
message flow
task
message flow
r task
message flow
task
645
32.1. Correlated variables equals two world lines and their current values
32.2. Information flow equals messags between worldlines
33. t-u combination = Virtual Layered Machine and mapping

Figure 123:
u t
Mapping
s
S s
s
s s
S s S s
s s
Virtual Layered Machines
33.1. When both kinds of state to function mappings are brought together there is complete
system mapping
33.2. VLM is the relation between higher level fumctions and lower level functions.
646
33.3. VLM is the reation between higher level states and lower level states.
647
Appendix C: Minimal Metods

Figure 124: Darts Minimal Method
AGENT
who
agent views data as data transport mechanism
Tasking Architecture Design
queue
TASK1 TASK2
semaphore
protected data
Monitor
data views agent via data monitor
where
DATA
648
Figure 125: Mapping and Virtual Layered Machine Minimal Methods
FUNCTION
what
function views agent as vehicles for
system functionality
Implementation Model
mapping of function task

Tasking Structure
nested tasks
[I I I I I I I]<virtual machine
instruction call structure
lower level
[I I I I I I I] <virtual machine
I m m I m m m lowest
method level
object object
agent views function as virtual machine
instructions performed
who
AGENT
649
Figure 126: Dataflow Minimal Method
FUNCTION
what
function views data as dataflow
inhibiting signal DATAFLOW
data in data out

function
data transform
OBJECT data store

TRANSFORM
data views function as transforming

method operating on persistent data
where
DATA
650
Figure 127: Statemachine and Petrinet Minimal Methods
EVENT
when
event views function as state transitions
state machine event
action
s1
event
s2
action event
action
s3
A series of
entry
transitions
may be re-
duced to get
petri net
state
place
transition
output
state
exit1 exit2 exit3
function views event as petri net
representation of control flow
what
FUNCTION
651
Figure 128: Design Element Flow and Data Mutation Minimal Methods
EVENT
when
digital view
event views data as flowing des
DESIGN
ELEMENT s2
FLOWset counter
increment
counter
s1 counter
static
nil counter s3
observer
watching data trigger
will raise trigger
when pre defined
threshold crossed
v
print changes in variable each it
DATA MUTATION
data views event as changes in data val

analog view
where
DATA
652
Figure 129: Worldlines and Scenario Minimal Methods
EVENT
when
event views agent as scenarios
event
event
scenario event event
event
event
event
event world event

line
event
agent1agent2 agent3 agent4 agent5
agent views events as worldline
who
AGENT
653
654
655
embodiment
EVENTITY
s compare
VALUE
EVENTITY
VALUE
Attribute Attribute Attribute Attribute
v event v event
v event v event
signal signal signal signal
INFORMATION FLOW DIAGRAM
INFORMATION NETWORK
EVENTITY EVENTITY
Attribute Attribute Attribute Attribute
embodiment r
656
t embodiment embodiment
EVENTITY
STATES
SYSTEM
u
SYSTEM
STATE TRANSIT
EVENTITY
SYSTEM STATES
SYSTEM
EVENTITY STATE TRANSIT
TRANSIT
SYSTEM
TRANSIT
SYSTEM
STATE
DESIGN ELEMENT FLOW
EVENTITY
DUAL REPRESENTATIONS STATES
657
658

Worlds:
Part 3: Chaotic Social Process Architecture

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. Abstract
This paper attempts to lay the foundations of reflexive autopoietic systems theory as
a specialization of general systems theory. An autopoietic system is a closed
cognitive-living system as defined by Maturana and Varela. A reflexive
autopoietic system is by definition social. It can look at itself and act upon its
organizational processes. Where the autopoietic system is homeostatic maintaining
its own organization as a variable; the reflexive autopoietic system is
heterodynamic, meaning it is ecstatic in its variety production. This essay seeks to
provide a framework within which the relations between these different more
specialized kinds of Systems may be understood in relation to each other.
2. Keywords
Autopoiesis, Reflexive Social Theory, Formal-Structural Systems, Virtual Reality, Software Methodology, Self-
Generating Component Systems, Worldmaking.
3. Disciplines
General Systems Theory, Theory of Emergent Worlds, Software Engineering, Systems Engineering, Ontology,
Theoretical Sociology, Constructivism, Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Life and Artificial Intersubjectivity, Social
Phenomenology, Computational Sociology, Autopoietic Sociology.
660
Copyright 1993 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved.Pre-publication draft. Not for distribution.
Draft#1 940415; Total pages: 758; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007; File name: SCEW3V04.FM
4. Autopoietic Sociology and Sociology of Gnosis
Having in previous papers in this series defined the foundations of Social

Phenomenology and Computational Sociology we will attempt here to explore the
intersection of these two disciplines formulating a sociological theory of work
processes and generalizing that into a more encompassing sociological theory of
process architecture in general. This attempt will revolve around our attempt to
build a minimal Artificial Intersubjectivity Simulator the idea of which was first put
forward by Ben Goertzel. Thus our theory is constructivist in the sense that it is
based on our attempts to build the A-IS simulator which has been discussed on the
socsim1 electronic mailing list. On that list we have considered many different
worlds and the forms that an A-IS simulator might take. This essay will take off
from part of that conversation that considered what form the minimal
implementation of Goertzel’s magicians and anti-magicians model might take. This
occurred in conjunction with my reconsideration of why I liked Goertzel’s model as
a basis for work process modeling. That consideration led directly to the series of
insights that will be presented here that will attempt to drive toward a new
sociological theory based on constructivism.
We begin with the observation that work processes are another way of describing
what marxist sociology calls praxis. Praxis is action guided by ideology or theory.
Work processes are guided by ethno-theories of all kinds applied to the lifeworld as
mundane typifications developed in the context of everyday life. These ethno-
theories held by participants are written down and agreed upon and then used to
judge practice within a field like engineering. Thus there is a phase of work process
definition and then a phase of enactment leading to the refinement of definitions
and the adaptation of behavior to correspond to descriptions. This is necessary
because the descriptions can be intersubjectively agreed upon and mutually enacted
for the purposes of coordination and reduction of unnecessary variety within the
organization. Normally this kind of social control of work is only done when there
is some detrimental condition that makes freeform work unacceptable for some
reason. We claim that work (praxis) has a privileged character in that it is the
manifestation of social coordination of action based on language. In relation to
work we can say that there is normally the distinction between the mundane and
1.socsim@world.std.com to subscribe send the message “subscribe socsim” to majordomo@world.std.com
661
sacred and the distinction between work and leisure. Work is normally considered
to be mundane. However, some rare work is considered sacred in our society. One
normally expects work to be identified with the mundane and that any sacred work
would take place in ones leisure. An example of sacred work during ones leisure
might be proselytizing for ones chosen religion. However, not all these categories
are so well defined as to exclude the possibility that some work might be seen as
sacred and playful instead of mundane. I posit that there is a special class of work
called autopoietic work that at once manifests the qualities of the playful and sacred
within the context of the mundane. We could call this autopoietic praxis instead. It
is work that occurs only rarely but organizes the whole field of mundane work. The
fact that what is rare might organize the whole field of work is from a sociological
standpoint a strange idea. It is this strange idea that is what differentiates
autopoietic sociology which appears at the intersection of social phenomenology
and computational sociology and makes it so different from normal sociology
theories. Our theory does not attempt to start with the ideologies or other frozen
images that society has of itself or some segment of society. It does not attempt to
deal with statistical patterns like most modern sociology. It does not even try to deal
with structural discontinuities within society. Instead our sociology attempts to deal
with the structures that can appear on the edge of chaos that are given over to Wild
Being. Autopoietic forms in society arise as a rare event. Those forms actually
mimic the structure of the emergent event and give us an image of the unfolding of
the four kinds of Being. It is these rare events that structure our experience of the
social field of tendencies and give structure to our socially constructed emergent
world. All work, all praxis, point toward the autopoietic social forms that appear in
the intersection between social phenomenology and computational sociology.
Social phenomenology is the extreme position of basing everything on the social as
the embodiment of the emergent.
Fundamentally the theory of the cultural unconscious as posited by social

phenomenology is like the causal theory the Buddhists call storehouse
consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). That is the unconscious storehouse of the seeds that
fructify into the world as we know it that is the foundation of the socially
constructed world. Computational sociology is the other extreme of reification of
the social into something simulatable in simulations that embody social theories. It
is the extreme of objectification of the social into distributed artificial intelligent
life. It takes the social out of the lifeworld and hands it over to the alien
intelligences we create. Whereas social phenomenology goes beyond what is
phenomenologically given to postulate the embodiment of the collective
662
unconscious as the basis for our worldbuilding. The sociality of the alien intelligent
creatures and our own sociality growing out of our being-with others are equally
mysterious. The intersection of these two is autopoietic sociology which deals with
the closed reflexive autopoietic dissipative embodied systems. Closure may be our
own closure, even closed to ourselves, or the closure of the computationally alien
creatures we invent. In either case we are talking about social constructivism that
allows us to discover who we are by seeing how we construct our emerging world.
We must approach these phenomena by construction because of their closure with
respect to us. There is not direct access to these phenomena. We only find out about
how they work indirectly through our constructions.
We mentioned the concept of the storehouse consciousness developed by the

Buddhists to explain how Karma works. In that theory all actions lay down seeds
which fructify in the next moment. Those seeds are said to be like a perfume which
taints the next successive moment and allows Karmic influences to promulgate.
This perfuming reminds us of the tendencies which are equally unsubstantial that
we see as the basis of all social intentions and thus social actions. It is the buddhist
answer to how causes are subtly propagated from instant to instant within the
universe allowing Karma to manifest despite the fact that there is nothing but
emptiness of every thing which cannot really carry any causation. Storehouse
consciousness is an unconscious and social repository of the seeds planted by
actions. Likewise we posit that the social unconscious underlies all the
schizophrenic and crazy variety that appears and must be channeled by society.
When A. Schutz and other theorists speak of typifications or abstractions operating
within the social realm they are missing the point. All these abstractions and
typifications are in fact the ways the basically shizophrenic social “matter” is
repressed. The matter of sociology is the endless unfolding variety that is repressed
by socialization and organizational forms. The modes of repression are only of
secondary interest. Of primary interest is the production of endless wild variety.
Social phenomenology studies how for humans this endless variety arises,
differentiates and finally fades away regardless of its channeling. Computational
sociology studies the dynamics of minimal social machines which attempt to
embody the essential nature of threshold of minimal complexity at which the social
arises as a reification. Computational sociology studies the Li of society thought
embodiments whereas Social Phenomenology studies the Chi of the social as it
gives rise to endless variety. Autopoietic sociology connects these two. You must
look at the Li and Chi of society together. Autopoietic sociology talks the minimal
social machines and treats them as autopoietic networks. Autopoietic sociology
663
understands the closure of the world based on the advent of rare autopoietic
structures within society. Such structures are more likely to arise in work/praxis
than theoretically. Autopoietic systems must be embodied they cannot exist as
purely theoretical objects. Social autopoiesis is embodied in the structure of work/
praxis as teams of co-workers that “click.” When they “click” they become very
efficient in every sense of the word and can accomplish tremendous things far
beyond the capacity of the sum of the members. These teams manage some how to
playfully embody the sacred in the mundane work environment. The sacred nature
becomes visible in the closure of the autopoietic team. The playful nature becomes
evident in the high efficiency of these teams based on the embodiment of neg-
entropic life-forms. Such teams are a joy to participate and make work a meaningful
activity for a change. The possibility of the autopoietic team or work situation
structures the entire field of work and generates the distinction between work and
leisure and sacred and profane. The anomalous case of sacred and playful work as
opposed to drudgery and profane work is what gives all work its essential form. The
field of praxis is not generated abstractly. It is generated by the experience of
autopoietic work which produces the distinction between itself and allopoietic
(other producing) work which embodies all the other normal aspects of the field of
all possible kinds of praxis based on the difference between those other kinds of
work and the anomaly of the emergent event of autopoietic work arising in that
field.
Our culture is dominated by the assumption of the value of work or production.

Baudrillard in The Mirror of Production showed that this is the fundamental
assumption shared by both Marxism and Capitalism. But all production is
considered to be basically the same. The model of all theory seems to be the
production line and manual labor. Production is goal directed human behavior that
has some kind designated-as-real social outcome. When we study work we see that
not all work is the same. Some work, for instance engineering work, produces the
designs to be produced by manual labor later. Software work has no real production
phase but what is designed and prototyped is basically just copied during the
production phase. So some kinds of engineering work do not lead to production or
assembly lines kinds of work. Other kinds of work are basically managerial. When
you study kinds of work that exists in engineering you see that there are many kinds
which are not related in any serial fashion but are instead extremely non-routine.
They can be very specialized types of work or very general types of work or even
idiosyncratic and unique work. Coordination and management of these highly non-
routine kinds of work is very difficult. It is for this reason that the field of
664
engineering work process is starting to grow beginning with the attempt to

understand and control software engineering work. Software engineering work is
highly non-routine at the beginning and end of the development process and fairly
routine in the middle. Systems Engineering work is completely non-routine. As has
been shown in a previous paper1 Software Engineering and General Systems
Theory are dual meta-disciplines and Systems Engineering is the point of
reversiblity between them. The relation between Hardware and Software
Engineering is between that of a Technology and a Meta-Technology. Software
integrates various technologies into a system in the context of a meta-system.
Hardware Engineering also has many non-routine aspects. Management work is
also a mixture of routine and non-routine work. All these kinds of work are not
normally considered by the sociology of work which has traditionally been enlisted
as a bulwark of the establishment to control manual labor. But as our society
becomes information based then information and knowledge workers become
increasingly important. It is these socially defined higher level workers that
essentially shape our society.
I have had the opportunity to study engineering work as a participant observer for a
number of years and this eventually led to the professional study of work in the
context of work process and enactment facilitation as a chairman and then member
of our Software Engineering Process Group. Being the only trained sociologist that
I know of in this field I began exploring its theoretical foundations and found them
wanting. The field was based on the work of Demming in Japan where he applied
process control techniques to assembly lines. Watts Humphrey attempted to re-
import these techniques and reapply them to software work resulting in the
Capability Maturity Model developed by the Software Engineering Institute. The
model is based on the fundamental assumption that software work forms a
continuous stream that can be managed and quality controlled like an assembly line.
This seems to work for the parts of the Process that are routine but not for those
parts that are highly non-routine. Pava described the difference between routine and
non-routine work in the context of office work. When you move to engineering the
non-routine aspects of work become more extreme in nature. Therefore another
model that would describe the characteristics of non-routine engineering work was
needed. I had great difficulty finding such a model until I chanced upon the
CHAOTIC LOGIC by Ben Goertzel. His model works very well as a basic model
of non-routine work. One of the objects of this paper is to explore how this model
1.“Software Engineering Design Methods, General Systems Theory, Artificial Intelligence, and Systems Engineering.” (manu-
script)
665
can be used in this way to support work process modeling. A brief summary
Goertzel‘s model as it applies to social work processes has been given in the first
part of this series of papers. That model will be clarified and expanded in
preparation for approaching the construction of an Artificial Intersubjectivity
simulation.
But a second outcome of this work was to formulate the model of Autopoietic work
process as an alternative to the other models of software and systems development
which are prevalent. There are basically three approaches to the description of work
processes: life-cycle, causal activity template and kinds of work. These form a
spectrum with the two ends representing temporal and atemporal descriptive
methods. The life-cycle describes black-box activities performed in a series of
abstract phases that generally represents the sequence of the essential
transformations of production. There are several different variations of lifecycle
ranging from waterfall to evolutionary styles. The waterfall performs a production
sequence of essential phases of work on all parts of the product. The Evolutionary
life-cycle performs these phases on each part of the product in sequence.
Evolutionary life-cycle is usually the basis of prototyping. The Spiral lifecycle
combines the two extremes into a single model. In thinking about these types of
life-cycle and the performance of efficient teams I devised the concept of the
autopoietic lifecycle which is basically a closed ring of essential transformations
around which information flows in both directions instead of as a sequence.
Products are the result of this dual flow which creates an interference pattern of
information in each phase of the ring. The autopoietic ring is composed of a set of
essential kinds of work that naturally form a series. When this series is arranged in a
ring then it becomes a closed autopoietic system of work which is the basis on
which the efficient team organizes its production. The autopoietic process combines
the atemporal kinds of work into natural formations which though the flow of
information around in both directions assumes a temporally stable structure. In that
structure the team locks into a harmonic resonance that allows them to be very
efficient in their coordination and self-management of processes. The main work of
the team becomes self-production maintaining the ring structure against the
perturbations of the environment. The team maintains its own structure of essential
work processes homeostatically. As a side effect the autopoietic process is also
allopoietic and produces products that are built by a more efficient process than the
evolutionary or the waterfall life-cycles. In the autopoietic process the products
accrue thought the confluence of information directed by the team as a whole.
These confluences of information only become products when taken out of the
666
autopoietic ring. In the autopoietic ring kinds of work did not have to be mixed
because each kind maintains its atemporal independence even as the information is
cycling through the ring. Thus the autopoietic ring process solves the problems of
mediating the relation between kinds of work and life-cycle without having to resort
to explicit external enforcement of products and Activities that pre-mix information
and functions in a causal chain. In the autopoietic process there is a continual
adaptivity that allows the information and kinds of work to be efficiently formed
into products without scheduling separate reified activities with intermediate reified
products. Everyone who has worked on a team that “clicked” knows that they are
much more efficient at producing quality outputs from highly non-routine
enactment of sets of essential processes than any external controlled process could
possibly produce. This is because the products and activities are dynamically
adaptive though continuous feed forward and feedback of information in a set of
optimized essential transformations that are enacted by an extremely non-routine
strategy buy the individual members of the team working together. It is a complex
dance within a structured chaotic attractor. The autopoietic ring forms the
harmonically stable platform for this dance. The dance is like a conversation which
the team members engage in using the work products as the medium of exchange.
Like any conversation the team members can re-enter the subject tree of the dance
together at points they keep together in group memory. Thus very little information
is lost when the team is stable and not interfered with often. It is an amazing thing to
participate in -- a work enactment that is simultaneously playful and sacred. Sacred
because it is taboo because of its social closure to the rest of the organization or
world. It is a sub-culture of its own. But it is playful because high productivity
seems effortless within its bounds. It is anomalous work. It is structured like an
emergent event. It conditions the field of all other forms of work. In all other forms
of work production drains us. In the autopoietic ring of an efficient team work is a
pure joy.
We have learned through this series of essays that the opposite of the homeostasis
of the autopoietic is the heterodynamic social reflexive autopoietic dissipative
system. The social is inherently heterodynamic which means that it is endlessly
producing variety of every kind. Teams that operate in an autopoietic ring and are
engaged in a complex dance on the edge of chaos can become ultra-innovative and
creative. In essence they start discovering things together than none of the
participants knew previously. This is the true meaning of the Platonic dialectic.
Such special social groups tap into sources of endless variety and cause novel
solutions to emerge from out of their interaction. Thus the team is not just a neg-
667
entropic system with a dynamic self-maintained boundary, it is also based on a

closed autopoietic ring of essential transformations (kinds of work) and it embodies
the heterodynamic basis of the reflexive social system. In other words what Deleuze
and Guattari call the schizophrenic basis of the social is channeled by the group to
produce novel solutions within the work process.
Figure 130:
Autopoietic Ring
essential kinds of work
form a ring instead of a linear
arrangement and information
flows in both directions
Spiral
Evolutionary combination Waterfall
sequentially do each essential kind
all kinds of work on of work on all
each part one at a parts sequentially
time TEMPORAL DESCRIPTION
LIFE CYCLE
TEMPLATE CAUSAL MIXED DESCRIPTION

Activity product Activity product Activity
mixtures
mixtures of kinds
of kinds of of information
work
Function Function Function Function
information
Function Function
Function
ATEMPORAL DESCRIPTION
This anomalous configuration of work has the structure of the emergent event. This
is to say that all the different kinds of Being are represented in a stable interrelation
668
within the enacted autopoietic ring. Normally emergent events disrupt social
patterns. Genuinely emergent events must pass through all four meta-levels of
Being on their way to incorporation into the social system. But social autopoietic
structures themselves are rare standing waves of processes that balance all the
different aspects of manifestation giving equal weight to homeostasis and
heterodynamics within the dissipative context. One might say that the whole
purpose of society is to produce these harmonic social structures or prevent their
appearing. Instead of a sociology of knowledge one might speak of a sociology of
gnosis. Knowledge is a static structure embodied in language which is available and
retrievable. Gnosis is the relation of knowledge to experience. You can know
everything about some subject but having not experienced it you are really ignorant
of it in some basic way. What we really need to understand is how society manages
its gnosis rather than how it manages its knowledge. An autopoietic structure is
really a subject of gnosis and not knowledge. The autopoietic system does not exist
if not embodied. As knowledge there is nothing to it. You can know all about an
autopoietic system from the outside but unless you have experienced one you will
not know anything because it is essentially closed and knowledge of the kind that is
in books does not capture it. It is only really known thought experience. The gnosis
of the autopoietic system exists mostly in tacit knowledge instead of explicit
knowledge. That tacit knowledge is the result of experience. At most all you can say
about such a system is phrases like “the team clicked.” You either know what that
means from experience or you do not. Society manages gnosis even more carefully
than knowledge. Gnosis can only be obtained through Heuristic Research. It cannot
be obtained thought any method that distances you from your subject of inquiry.
Gnosis arises from experience where one is not separated from what one
experiences in any way. Thus to have a gnosis of what an autopoietic social process
is one must jump right in and fully immerse oneself in the work of the team. If the
social harmony is achieved then suddenly there is a qualitative difference in the
“work” atmosphere. The Li and Chi of the team become qualitatively different. For
instance things seem to slow down and flow naturally even thought one discovers
that productivity is unusually high. Everything appears as if it is exquisitely ordered
even though from the outside everything looks like total chaos. Autopoietic
sociology is the search in society for a very rare species of harmonious social
interaction which conditions all other action within society. It can only be
approached thought a sociology of gnosis which combines experience and tacit
knowledge instead of a sociology of knowledge alone. Society as a whole attempts
to foster autopoietic forms or social self-organization in some sectors and repress it
in others. Knowledge can be allowed to flow more freely than essential gnosis that
669
can make it possible to activate that knowledge. This is why experience is counted
more highly than mere knowledge of it. This is why graduates from college really
know almost nothing of their chosen field until they undergo on the job training and
apprenticeship which unfortunately in our society does not occur simultaneously
with book learning. Autopoietic sociology must be a sociology of embodied gnosis.
Autopoietic systems are only known though experiential gnosis. One unawares
enters a team that has achieved an autopoietic stability and is exercising the
complex heterodynamic dance on that dancing ground. Suddenly one locks into a
new way of interacting with a high degree of harmony. From then on one longs for
this experience. It is incredibly addictive and leads directly to workaholic problems
because time seems to stand still and space contracts to the team alone which
becomes integrated like some highly trained military squad. The result is almost
always success unless there is overwhelming environmental disturbances. The
whole team thinks better than any individuals within it. It has unleashed its
creativity and innovation but controls this socially and channels it into the project in
a well regulated way.
Social Phenomenology and Computational Sociology set the stage for the advent of
Autopoietic Sociology and the Sociology of Gnosis. We are not any longer looking
for general social features. Instead, we are looking for very rare social formations
that make all other formations possible. These are embedded in tacit knowledge that
cannot be made explicit in most cases. Thus we must apply Heuristic Research in
the context of our four distancing methodologies in order to get a handle on these
features that can only be apprehended by our own gnosis. Social Phenomenology
sets the stage by directing our attention at the social matter of chaotic tendencies
that make up the social fabric and drive the social system. Social Phenomenology
reveals the importance of the collective unconscious in everyday affairs. Thought
the collective unconscious we can resonate with the behavior of others and get in
sync following their indications in the complex heterodynamic dance on the
dancing ground of the structurally stable autopoietic ring. The collective
unconscious functions exactly like it is described by the Yogacaraian Buddhists as
the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana). The collective unconscious is active
in the social milieu. The perfume of the tendencies allow the karmic causality from
discrete socially designated as real specious present moment to moment. The
karmic causality in this case is the movement around the ring of the information and
the non-routine dance of the social machines. You see there is a basic problem that
the Yogacaraian philosophers found a neat solution for which confronts us as well.
The problem is that if the social ground is inherently chaotic how does the extreme
670
regularity of the autopoietic ring appear. If each aspect of the social matter is
fragmented then where does the unity of the autopoietic processes come from. The
answer of the Yogacaraians was that there was a perfuming by which each moment
actions plants seeds for the next moments actions. There is no real connection
between moments but only perfuming of one moment by the next. I our case this
perfuming will be seen as occurring via Goertzel’s magicians model. We shift from
actuality to possibility between the separate moments. The propensities or
tendencies connect the possibilities between moments to the actualities in adjacent
moments. The category that Johannson identified of tendency is crucial to this
perfuming by which individual actualized moments are created in the model of
chaotic processes. If the category of propensity did not exist then individual
moments could not be connected via the layers of possibility between moments.
Propensity represents a new dimension orthogonal to both actuality and possibility
that allows their intrinsic indirect connection. Goertzel calls the result of this
perfuming collusion which is essentially a social phenomenon that arises out of
chaos and fragmentation to provide the basis of illusory continuity.
Computational Sociology also sets the stage for autopoietic sociology by defining
the minimal social machines that arise out of the intersection of desiring machines
and the socius of Deleuze and Guattari. This is the ultimate reification of the
structural aspect of society which allows us to define computationally abstract
social structures. It is the computational social structures that we wish to see
interacting via Goertzel’s model so that we can attempt to discover social
phenomenon via computer simulations and visualizations of complex dynamic
patterns similar to those that have been so successful in other disciplines for
improved appreciation of complex dynamical systems. Autopoietic and Social
systems are further specializations of dissipative systems. They have very regular
and harmonic forms which can be modeled effectively on computers as simulations.
By searching for the minimal thresholds of social complexity as we did in the last
essay in this series then it is possible to see autopoietic systems in their simplest
forms and explore their dynamics at a threshold close to that of a genuinely “social”
system. We can see how the alien intelligences we create as artificial living
creatures function socially together and watch for emergent phenomena which will
help us understand the nature of the social emergent level better. Since the emergent
is inherently social every example of emergent phenomenon gives us further insight
into the inner nature of the social itself. Since the autopoietic has the inner structure
of emergence that is what keeps it so stable. We can further study emergence by
studying the structure of autopoietic social phenomena and simulations of
671
autopoietic structures. Computational Sociology reifies the social away from the
human to the ultimate degree and merges it into the alienness of artificially
intelligent life. Social Phenomenology on the other hand merges the social into the
most mysterious aspect of our humanness which is the collective unconscious.
These two extreme perspectives allow us to approach the interface between them
which is autopoietic sociology which must be explored thought the sociology of
gnosis based on the principles of Heuristic Research. Heuristic Research is
presented as an individual methodology. Gnostic Sociology is based on group
experience and group knowledge as people work in teams. All kinds of groups that
do not work together are studied by sociology. But the study of working teams is
relatively rare considering how many working teams that function as part of
industry. Since production is a major assumption by all western societies regardless
of ideology it would seem like teamwork would be a major research emphasis. But
the number of protocol studies of design teams and other teams doing highly non-
routine work are very few. The number of phenomenological studies of such teams
are almost nil. This is because to do them you must have the specialities necessary
to join into the group work processes. It is then only occasionally under special
circumstances that such teams achieve social harmony. Thus the key phenomena of
autopoietic work processes are completely missed by sociologists. Sociologists
need to get to work, literally. Setting in ivory towers make them miss all the most
interesting social phenomena. There may be other such phenomena out there
besides autopoietic rings that have been missed by sociologists. Sociology of
science and technology need to be carried on by scientists and technologists. Unless
we become radically interdisciplinary we will not be able to explore these
anomalous social structures that are crucial to our understanding of the society as a
whole -- which will force us to re-vision it and change our paradigms
fundamentally. The split between practicing engineer and social scientist probably
hides many fascinating phenomena. We can only enter this wilderness by being
more than sociologists or more than practicing engineers. They do not appear in
reified social structures. They do not appear in statistical studies. They only appear
thought participatory research -- that is though a total ongoing engagement with the
actual enacted society. If sociology has stalled in the quest for knowledge it is
because what is needed is gnosis -- the mixture of experience and knowledge. As
Kant said understanding comes from the mixture of experience and reason.
Disconnected theory or empirical studies from afar do not “cut it” any longer.
It is necessary to computationally model dynamic social systems based on minimal

social machines in order to get a picture of the workings of society as a complex
672
dynamical system. It is necessary to engage in social phenomenology in order to

understand the active workings of the collective unconscious as the basis of all
social action. It is necessary to engage in social phenomenon actively thought
Heuristic research. It is necessary to study the workings of teams engaged in active
praxis thought participation in order to gain tacit knowledge of anomalous social
structures like the autopoietic rings that form the basis for heterodynamic dances
within production. Sociology treats production as if it were an evil. This is because
sociology produces very little considered of value by the rest of society. But
production is a fundamental form of manifestation in the world dominant Western
worldview. We must understand production as it exists in an information and
knowledge based society if we are to understand our worldview in any fundamental
way. This is why we concentrate on the sociology of work. That work may be
scientific, engineering, skilled or manual work. But Sociology has concentrated on
the two ends of this spectrum too long. Sociology needs to try to understand
engineering work. Following Foucaults principle that the work of the most brilliant
minds of the era do not always tell you the most about basic phenomena of the
society we can see that an archeology of engineering gnosis is necessary. Engineers
apply what scientists discover. They find workable “satisficing” solutions that are
given over to skilled and manual workers to produce in quantity. The creativity and
innovation in engineering work does not normally have long term value in the
society at large. But that regulated creativity and innovation has a peculiar form that
is socially controlled and may tell us more about society than all the discoveries of
the scientists. This is because the things the engineer work with are proven as
intersubjectively valid and practical. Scientific ideas are not in themselves
completely finished. Instead it takes a team effort bringing many different kinds of
work to bear to turn the many scientific principles into a solution that works within
the world. The manual and skilled laborers merely follow the frozen pattern of the
designs laid down by the engineers. But in engineering itself those design patterns
unfolded. It is that unfolding that occurs within the context of the autopoietic social
system or many variations that attempt to achieve that social harmonic but usually
fail. Only scientific projects that engage engineers or where scientists themselves
work as engineers in teams is a similar dynamic set up. For the most part the
autopoietic social system forms around sets of essential kinds of work that form
rings where information flows both ways in a closed manner around the ring. It is a
rare and anomalous phenomenon but one that organizes the entire field of work and
indeed the entire social fabric because of the centrality of production to the Western
worldview.
673
5. Chaotic Process Modeling
Goertzel‘s chaotic process model has been generally explained. Here we will go
into more detail to show why this model is a good one for attempting to understand
chaotic socially enacted work processes. But specifically we will focus in on how
such a chaotic process model would be applied to model the social itself. We begin
by re-presenting the aspects of Goertzel’s model this time with an eye toward its
embodiment in as simple a form as we can think of and then show how this simple
form is also inherently social. The result is a premise that the chaotic process model
is inherently social in nature.
Goertzel’s model begins with a set of self generating processes. These self-
generating process nodes interact until an appropriate spawning time. At that
spawning time they all individually produce a plethora of virtual self-generating
process nodes which each one thinks should exist in the next specious present
moment. These virtual self-generating process nodes are thrust into the real of
possibility. In that realm there is a cancellation process that is carried out which
allows self-generating process nodes with opposite qualities to annihilate each
other. What is left over from this cancellation process will be actualized in the next
moment. But the cancellation process is governed by the collusions between
different self-generating process nodes which taken as a whole greater than the sum
of the parts may produce random input into the process in the form of extra positive
or negative self-generating process nodes. These extra self-generating process
nodes are called magicians and anti-magicians because they make self-generating
process nodes appear or disappear and thus change the final result. Whatever self-
generating process nodes survive the cancellation process including the existence of
magicians and anti-magicians in the soup will exist as actualized at the next
specious present moment. Then these will interact until it is time to spawn again.
The important thing about this model is there is not actual connection between
specious present moments. They are only connected thought the generation and
destruction of possibilities in a dimension orthogonal to the present. But the
possible and the actual are not really connected except by propensities which is in
yet another orthogonal dimension. It is the propensities of self-generating process
nodes that cause them to generate potentials. It is the propensities of self-generating
process nodes that are the basis of their being weeded out in the cancellation
process. It is the propensities of the whole cloud of self-generating process nodes,
actual and potential, that cause the generation of the magicians and anti magicians
that attempt to skew the cancellation process. It is the propensities of certain self-
674
generating process nodes to cooperate that allows collusion to exist between them.
And finally it is the propensities of actual self-generating process nodes that
determine their mutual interactions prior to spawning. These propensities are like to
perfuming that connects one moment to the next across the abyss of discontinuity
between moments.
This model well represents the different kinds of Being. The existence of the self-
generating process nodes in a particular moment and their seeming persistence
through time is where Pure Presence enters into this illusorily continuous process.
The interaction of the self-generating process nodes within the moment and the
temporal gestalt of all the self-generating process nodes that is greater than the sum
of the parts is where Process Being enters into this statistical process. The
discontinuity between moments and the cancellation process are the points where
Hyper Being enters into this discontinuously punctuated process. The propensities
of the self-generating process nodes both alone and together is were Wild Being
enters into this fundamentally chaotic process. This model is sculpted to balance all
the concerns of each kind of Being in a single process model. Because of that it can
be seen to provide a model that can span all the different kinds of manifestation. But
we call it a chaotic process model because that is the deepest level of manifestation
it covers. Most process models either model work as illusory continuities or as
statistical phenomena. Very few process models deal with breakdowns in work
processes.1 No process model that I know of attempts to model chaotic processes.
But it is exactly a model of chaotic processes that we need if we are to understand
non-routine work which is essentially chaotic in its execution during enactment. So
it is readily apparent why Goertzel’s model of chaotic processes is of interest. But
how do we fit this model to our conception of work process.
1.The model of Walt Scaachi is the exception here.
675
Figure 131:

anti-magician magician
3) cancellation of magicians
add together
F
I
RAW POTENTIAL L
R
anti-
propensity
cancel)
filter is mutual
conspiracy of
all the processes
conspiracy
between processes
t0 discontinuity
between moments
t1
Let us think for a moment of the Congress of the United States. The periods in
question are between votes on bills. In these periods the congressmen are lobbied
by professional representatives of interest groups and their constituents. Each
congressman has his propensities on every issue. But before the vote there is
generated a myriad of possible votes for different reasons for each congressman. As
the pressures are brought to bear and the deals between congressmen are made then
these different possible votes for different reasons begin to be cancelled out until in
the end each congressman casts a single vote which is his actualized vote. During
the bargaining and negotiations under pressure from all sides the various interests at
play represent the sum total of all the propensities as they impinge on a single
congressman. But in the end the congressman must sum all these expressions of
interest or opinion or propensity and add it to his own to manage to discover what
his final vote will be. We can model this as a cancellation of virtual votes for
676
different reasons. The bargains or deals trading votes can be seen as the collusion
between the self-generating process nodes which lead to certain collusions
maintaining themselves from vote to vote. If we do not think of the congressmen as
people but as holders of power and expressions of interests the we can see that the
total pattern of power and interest embodiment is constantly changing throughout
the history of voting so that the self-generating process node on one side of the vote
may be very different from the self-generating process node of the other side of the
vote. Perhaps in a vote the congressman loses some essential block of support and
thus alters his power base considerably as a result of a vote. Thus Goertzel’s model
forces us to understand voting in congress as a field of propensities (interests and
opinions) which manifests discontinuities that frame virtual self-generating process
nodes (votes, power centers) which in turn exhibit possibilities (votes for different
reasons) which ultimately must cancel to produce a single actualized vote. From the
field of tendencies we see a structure of attraction and repulsion which is dynamic
so that it exhibits energy and flowing movement. These nodes within the field are
related to possibilities which may be actualized. The propensities are the drivers of
actualization for these myriad possibilities. The congressman is merely the locus of
the cancellation of possible courses of action and the caldron in which these
propensities seethe.
This example shows that it is not impossible to understand how the model of
chaotic processes apply to concrete real situations. But congress is an exceptional
kind of place in which all the pressures from the whole country are focused causing
chaotic turbulence within a single unique institution. What we are saying is that
there are many other places in our social fabric that is similar to congress in the
intensity of social interaction so that the chaotic process model is appropriate. Our
point is that we should always use this model because it supports all other kinds of
Being as layers of reification on top of the basic chaotic processes. This model can
emulate discontinuous models, statistical models, and continuous models of process
when these different models are appropriate. However, when chaotic processes are
present then Goertzel’s model shows its real worth because it makes these
intelligible in relation to all the other kinds of process models. We must remember
that work process is a kind of manifestation so that all the different kinds of being
are relevant to the description of that presencing that occurs in work. Work is a
more fundamental kind of presencing than occurs in literature for example. This is
because work is rooted in a broader spectrum of behavior, not just writing. So work
is a more robust spectrum of phenomena than literature which is normally studied
by literary criticism as a kind of presencing. Artistic presencing is a specialized
677
kind of work. What we need to do is consider all the different varieties of work
done in our society. Within those we find that certain kinds, especially science and
engineering change the fabric of interactions among other kinds of skilled and
unskilled work by providing technology based on scientific insight. Through
technology we can do things in different ways and those ways are always changing.
Production in our society is the basic form that manifestation takes. Some kinds of
production change the way production itself occurs. Science does this by
understanding phenomena better. Engineering does this by applying the insights of
science with practical wisdom or cleverness or cunning (which the Greeks called
metis). The production of changes in the ways to produce is meta-production.
Engineering meta-production has a special place in our society. And one of its
characteristics is that meta-production is very often highly non-routine. We need a
model of chaotic production to understand that non-routine aspect of Engineering.
Goertzel gives us such a model. It should be the fundamental model underlying all
our efforts to understand all work processes (behaviorally coupled kinds of
manifestation).
When we look at an organization we should imagine it as a very complex chaotic

behavioral attractor. When we approach it we can begin to understand it by
mapping out atemporally the kinds of work done by such an organization. Now we
will find that some of the work done is routine and can be described by continuous
flows of information or materials along predetermined paths. We will find
associated with these flows certain processes by which the information or materials
are transformed. We may even find that there are certain well defined
discontinuities within the flows where no one quite knows what happens or where
something different happens each time depending on circumstances based on
intuitions. But within the whole panoply of kinds of work there will be many
instances in which sets of kinds of work are performed together in an iterative and
recursive manner that appears random from the perspective of an outside observer.
These are strange attractors within the field of all the kinds of work performed in an
organization. These strange attractors have a special relation to the whole field.
They are the generators of the field. And at times they can manifest autopoietic
harmonics. By looking at work atemporally we are able to map the large complex
attractor or cluster of attractors that generate the field of kinds of work and
represent it at different levels of abstraction by a hierarchical functional
decomposition. The decomposition of kinds of work provides us with map that is
independent of the time domain in which execution occurs. We can consider what
kinds of work a particular individual has been assigned and how he jumps between
678
these kinds of work in order to complete his tasks. We can consider the way the
different kinds of work are apportioned or negotiated during the process of setting
up the activities to be performed. We can consider how different individuals
coordinate their activities with respect to the different kinds of work they perform
together. We can consider how they communicate within the process of performing
their different kinds of work. There are a myriad aspects of the relation between
enactment and the map of the kinds of work territory within an organization which
might be studied fruitfully. However, once you realize that this basic map of kinds
of work is central because it maps the chaotic strange attractor that organizes the
field of work within an organization, then you begin to see that chaotic process
modeling is the first step in the understanding of the social dance of jointly executed
work in an organization. The mapping of that into a time domain is secondary in
importance.
But let us go further and consider the fact that this basic structure of kinds of work
in a hierarchy is perceived by different individuals differently within the same
organization. Not everyone knows the whole tree of kinds of work. Different people
have different degrees of knowledge: some have gnosis or experience plus
knowledge of particular kinds of work. Some only have knowledge because they
have studied it but never done it. Some only have observed others doing it but never
done it themselves. Some kinds of work may never be seen because one does not
interact with the parts of the organization that do those things. Thus each individual
has their own partial map of the hierarchy of kinds of work. This means that the
kinds of work hierarchy is social and intersubjective. It is socially constructed in
that it is constructed by everyone acting together as a community of self-generating
process nodes. But it is also intersubjectively projected in that it is really the sum
total of what is in everyone’s head. This is to say we can see the hierarchy as
something outside of everyone which is formed in the forge of collective
unconscious action. Or we can see it as a summation across all the individual
viewpoints on the hierarchy where each individual only has partial knowledge of
the whole of the hierarchy. Using the internal view we get something like society as
the summary of the intentions of everyone taking everyone else into account to
infinite reflective meta-levels. Johannson presents a calculus like this to explain
intersubjectivity in terms of summaries of intentions. Goertzel has expressed a
similar view. The opposite of this view is that there is a collective unconscious
outside the heads of everyone which produces the coordination of the conscious
views of everyone participating in the same behavioral dance. One view says we
can render all the social processing explicitly and perhaps reifiy it into an
679
intentional calculus that can be computed like computational sociology would

produce. The other view says that there is a collective unconscious that is closed to
us that has the real model which informs all the partial models that each participant
is conscious of separately. Now what we really need is a model that allows both of
these possibilities to coexist and that is the goal of autopoietic sociology. Social
behavior is obviously partially conscious coordination and collusion and partially
unconscious dance of actors bound by synchroniety into the same manifold of
action in ways they do not consciously comprehend. What is interesting about
Goertzel’s model is that it allows either of these interpretations on the same basic
structure of the model. These different interpretations appear as the dual ways of
looking at the dual networks. In the psychological model the heterarchy is
associative memory and the hierarchy is control. In the social model the heterarchy
is lifecycle control and the hierarchy is functional decomposition of kinds of work.
Now we understand that switching from one of the dual interpretations of the dual
model to the other is the way we transition from the idea that the hierarchy is ultra-
conscious (subject of reification into a calculus of intentions) to the idea that it is
mostly in the collective unconscious. Individuals are obsessed with their own
jumping from one function to another. This is represented as a control hierarchy of
program that encompasses their behavior. The heterarchy is the memory of work
functions done in the past associated through images. By learning different kinds of
work we can immediately return to those kinds of work and process new work
based on associations. The skipping around is under conscious control and we
consider it as a linear program that the self-generating process node executes.
Multiple self-generating process nodes process their own programs concurrently
across the field of all remembered kinds of work applied by association. This view
lets us think we can create temporally locked process programs to control the
actions of self-generating process nodes and make them dance together. This view
breaks down when non-routine work is necessary, but it works for all routine work
with simple coordination demands. When we take the dual of this viewpoint on the
dual networks we get the social viewpoint on the hierarchy and heterarchy. Here the
hierarchy is the intersubjectively common kinds of work seen as an atemporal field
within which the different self-generating process nodes hop around in a random or
chaotic manner. The heterarchy is transformed into the lifecycle of the
intersubjective cohort in which the different self-generating process nodes attempt
to roughly coordinate their behavior in an external way instead of by internal
programming. The heterarchy becomes the mode of control. It is a heterarchy
because the phases of the lifecycle are not necessarily connected to each other. They
may be arbitrary discontinuous breakpoints (milestones) in the flow of execution of
680
the work. They merely give an external coordination sign to allow independent self-
generating process nodes to keep track of where they are in relation to everyone
else. It is in the execution of kinds of work in relation to the execution of other
kinds of work by others that allow this coordination to be honed into a fine tuned
dance of mutual cooperation.
The associative heterarchical network of the individual is the way that the
individual relates to the socially grounded hierarchy of work. He does not know it
as a whole as it appears socially but he only knows the parts he has learned in the
past and can reinvoke via associations. The control hierarchy (process program1) of
the individual is the way he maintains control given the external signs of
coordination in the lifecycle. Thus we see here that the two dual networks actually
work together to define the social and psychological perspectives on chaotic
process. We might realize that what we have here are two intervals between the
same limits. Given one interval the limits look one way (psychological) and given
the other interval (the dual) the limits appear different (essentially social). The dual
images of the dual networks function together to give us a model of the relation
between the social and the psychological interpretations of the chaotic process
model. This leads us to say that we can see the chaotic process model from two
perspectives as well. We can see the self-generating process nodes in the model
may be looked at from the point of view of agency or functionality. This is to say
we can view the functionally decomposed elements of the chaotic attractor as self-
generating process nodes or we can view the autonomous agents within the
lifecycle as self-generating process nodes. When we see functions as process nodes
then we are basically making the social active whereas when we see agents as
process nodes then we are seeing the psychological aspect as predominant. We
should expect our model of chaotic social processes to have both of these aspects.
The actual work functions will produce the work processes to be executed in the
next moment. Simultaneously the agents should produce the set of agents to be
processing those functions in the next moments. Both of these productions should
operate concurrently to determine the set of work functions and the set of agents
that will exist in the next moment together. Psychological processes obviously
operate concurrently with social processes. The sum of psychological processes
produce the social context and the sum of social processes produce basis of the
psychological. These two participate in what the Buddhists call dependent co-
arising. It is important that our model represents the dependent co-arising between
1.See the work of Lee Osterweil on Process Programming.
681
agent and functional viewpoints. Once we have realized that the agent and function
viewpoints exercise Goertzel’s model in opposite ways simultaneously then it
becomes clear that all the things we said about agent and function in our section on
computational sociology become applicable. Agent and Function viewpoints
become the basis of autonomy and intentionality. Strangely the autonomous is
associated with the psychological and the intentional is associated with the social.
In other words what is seen as autonomous within the social has its own interior that
is psychological and what is seen as intentional from the point of view of the
psychological is from the outside seen as functional in the social arena. Thus the
two simultaneous chaotic process models based on the two viewpoints operate in a
yin/yang fashion to give each other what they each cannot achieve on their own. As
a result of this simultaneous execution of the two chaotic process models based on
the duality of the dual networks we see that everything we were saying about the
derivation of the minimal methods and their embodiment now apply in this new
arena. Now we have a dynamical system that corresponds to the static structure
presented in the last essay in this series.
What we are saying ultimately boils down to this. We need not one but two models
of chaotic processes. One allows functions to self-generate while the other allows
agents to self-generate. Each moment in the evolution of the system is the
interaction between the functions that happen to be actualized in relation to the
agents that happen to be actualized. This allows us to process the society from two
angles at the same time. We process society as the collective unconscious and
external determiner rooted in hierarchical function. We also process society as the
calculus of intentions of multiple individuals. The first processing derives from the
insights of social phenomenology. The second processing derived form the insights
of computational sociology. The result of the dual chaotic processing is an
autopoietic sociological model. That model tends toward the limit of the social from
two directions based on the two interpretations of the dual networks applied at the
same time. The interference pattern between these two simultaneously enacted
chaotic process models is where the emergent phenomenon of the social will be
seen to arise.
Ultimately we would like to embody in such a model the six vectors and the six
methods as they play around the interaction surfaces. But this is not feasible in the
short term. Therefore we will explore some simpler embodiments of the chaotic
process model and attempt to understand the general outlines of a dynamic
implementation of our insights developed based on the confluence of social
682
phenomenology and computational sociology as they define autopoietic sociology.

6. A Minimal Social Process Model
Now lets consider how a minimal chaotic process model might work. It is clear that
it is composed on agents and functions. Each plays a dual role. The functions map
the organizational complex chaotic attractor in a fractal manner modeling its
structure of lobes. The functions also are what individual agents recall through the
associative heterarchical network. In this later case the functions are associated with
images retained in long term memory of the individuals. That long term memory is
within the unconscious of the individual agent. Associations allow the agent to
access these memory images instantaneously. The images like all patterns are
directly related to the algorithms that can produce such patterning. Therefore each
image is associated with a function or algorithm or behavior that can be executed to
process the image or produce it. We can see these behaviors as parsers that either
produce language-like patterns or are acceptors for them.
The agents also play a dual role. They consist of control structures within individual
agents and they exist as global coordinating state variables by which groups of
agents can coordinate their activities within a life-cycle. Notice that either control is
implicit or explicit in the way it is exhibited in the model. Now we could go on to
say as we have before that the interaction between function and agent produces petri
nets or state machines as the fundamental dual control mechanisms and we could
also say that agency and function entail each other so that they must always exist
together. Within the agent the control is expressed as a hierarchy (program) and
outside the agent control is exhibited as a heterarchy which is what allows multiple
agents to coordinate by mutually perceptible signs (like milestones). Notice here
that our model is poised between system and meta-system. The agent itself can be
seen as a system within the meta-system of the environment in which multiple
agents operate. The functional hierarchy can be considered as a single system but
there may be many functional sub-hierarchies within the heterarchy (rhizome) of
the associative memory. That heterarchy is like a meta-system of functionality. It is
in fact analogous to what Deleuze and Guattari call the rhizome (anti-tree) which
has no beginning or end or root but only a middle that can be entered at any point.
The meta-system of functions is completely different from the meta-system in
which agents cooperate but can act independently. It is the combination of these
two meta-systems that has the nature of the social. The social is an arena within
which autonomy is exercised and it is through socialization a set of learned
683
behaviors that unfurls the social landscape.
Now if we think that the functions and the agents are operating according to the
chaotic model then we have to postulate a certain amount of internal structure and
external structure that will allow that to be realized. We will posit that this is the
same as embedding and wrapping the system and meta-system layers with the other
layers from our ontological emergent hierarchy. Thus both functions (mappings of
the complex chaotic social attractor) and agents (as control hierarchies) will be
found to be composed of object-like and primitive-like constructs. Similarly the
functional meta-system of associative memory and the agent meta-system of the
life-cycle have imposed upon the structures drawn from the levels of domains and
worlds. We will not dwell upon this embedding and wrapping except briefly point it
out. What is important instead is that actualized functions produce potential
functions and actualizing agents produce actual agents via Goertzel’s model. This
means that there is no continuity from specious present moment to moment from
either the agent or function perspectives. Everything is up for grabs at each
recreation of the world.
Let us note for the moment how this model attunes with those metaphysical models
that appear in Islamic and Buddhist philosophy that posit that the whole universe is
recreated in each moment. Here a similar statement is being made where the world
of our agents and their functions is completely recreated for each specious present
moment and this is the underlying reality of manifestation which is more basic than
any of the other more superficial views of manifestation -- namely that flow from
moment to moment is continuous. What appears as simple continuity has an
elaborate substructure that makes that actualizes that illusion of continuity in each
moment.
Now functions will need to produce potential functions. They may do that
something like this. Let us assume that there is a master functional tree (Yddrasil) in
the collective unconscious which each agent only has a partial picture of in their
memory. Each agent has a cluster of functions that are the leaves of this tree which
are in his short term memory as possible next steps or as steps he has visited
recently. In his longer term memory he has gnosis of all the leaves he has
previously performed and knowledge of all the ones he has heard of from other
agents. There are a large number of leaves he has never heard of or experienced that
are not in his internal representation of the communal tree. In a spawning each
agent goes up the tree and votes on which functions at each level are the most
684
important for him at each level until he reaches the root of the tree. He votes using
the Analytical Hierarchy Process technique which compares each function to every
other function at the same level and mutually ranks them on a scale of importance
from one to ten. Then the eigenvector and eigenvalue of the permutation of rankings
is computed for each level in the tree to give the final rank of everything against
everything else for that agent. The eigenvalue represents the consistency of that
agent’s rankings of functions. When all the agents have gone through the ranking
process traveling up the tree of functions then they each are allotted resources and
they travel back down determining which leaf nodes they will actualize in the next
moment based on available resources and the priorities that appeared from the
rankings at each level. At the end of this process the agent has his new set of
functional hierarchy leaves that will be held in short term memory and which will
be executed according to his internal program until the next spawning.
Now we need to make explicit how agents are produced from one moment to the
next within the chaotic process model. Like our tree of functions we can imagine a
tree of agents which all agents in the system are part of. This tree of agents has
various levels of coordinated action. The highest level is equivalent to the meta-
system which allocates all processing resources. We noticed that in the last
mechanism resources came into play as a means of helping to determine how many
functions an agent can handle at one time. Here our goal is to produce a set of
agents that will exist in the next moment. We do this in a different way. Each agent
plans what he thinks needs to be done by all agents in the next moment. He
produces simulcra of all the agents he believes should exist to do work including
new ones that do not exist now. All agents produce similar plans for everyone. This
extends the hierarchy of actual agents with layers of potential agents operating at
first as if they were independent domains. Then the environmental constraints of the
next moment are projected by each agent on the entire set of virtual agents. Each
agent determines his votes as to which potential agents would be needed given the
projected environmental conditions. Next the goals of the next moment are
projected on all the existing potential agents. Then each agent votes as to which
potential agents would be needed to achieve the projected goals. Next the
agreements that agents have with each other are projected on all the existing
potential agents. Then each agent votes as to which potential agents violate existing
compacts. This list of criteria could be multiplied to include any relevant criteria
that the population of potential agents should meet. In each case a voting on all
potential agents is done by each agent. At the end all the votes are allowed to cancel
out by working down from the meta-systematic root of the tree toward the leaf
685
agents. Those agents that embody the most needed functions based on the
limitations that the environment can support are allowed to exist in the next
moment. All other potential agents vanish in cancellation. Individual agents from
one moment do not continue in the next moment except by surviving the voting
process.
To each of these voting procedures we must add propensity. Chaotic tendency or

propensity is the disposition toward certain outcomes based on chaotic variances
that cause certain potentials to be actualized rather than others. In both cases above
we have described more or less deterministic mechanisms for voting. However, at
each stage voting needs to be governed by propensities which is to also say habit.
Habits are self-maintaining and self-propagating structures. But within habit there is
some chaotic shifting based on tendencies which cause actions to differ based on
some Brownian motion that influences which habit will be activated in each
instance. So it is with voting. Votes occur according to habits and invoke the
mechanism of increasing returns so that once a vote or action has been done it is
more likely to be repeated except when the chaotic tendencies cause a deviation.
Thus the agent must act from memory of his past votes in spite of the fact that he
may not of existed in the last instant. Thus he either draws on his own memory or
communal memory as a basis for his habits and his tendencies.
Now to this mix we must add the fact that the functions and the agents act
communally not just as individuals. This can be done by allowing them to discuss
their votes prior to voting. Or this can be done by making the root of the agent tree
and the root of the function tree an independent guiding agent. It would probably be
best to do both of these strategies together. Agents could write their votes to a
blackboard and allow other agents to comment on their votes. Or agents could
selectively discuss voting among themselves according to patterns of socialization
or power relations. However, we might want to have some supra-social nexus
behind the scenes adding and subtracting functions or agents from the soup in the
style of magicians and anti-magicians. This supra-social nexus would of course in
our scheme be the Catalyst viewpoint. That viewpoint would be looking at the two
voting procedures and attempting to influence the outcome of both in order to gain
an integrated set of agents and functions for the next moment.
Another consideration is that when agents make planed virtual agents they could do
so using a genetic algorithm that combines the plans or programs of two or more
existing agents to produce a new program by cross-over and mutation of existing
686
programs ala Koza. Using a genetic algorithm to generate new plans from
combinations of old plans allows the agents to evolve. Similarly new functions
might be added or subtracted from the communal hierarchy in order to allow the
complex chaotic attractor that is the basis of action to evolve over time. However, it
is unlikely that these new functions would be built up using Genetic Algorithms.
Internally the agents would be virtual layered machines which embody their own
programs which are executed based on petri nets or state machines. Agents could
also order the machine based on some AI control mechanism like expert systems. In
the latter case the rules for firing instructions would themselves be candidate
genetic material. Within the lifecycle produced by global variables the agents would
coordinate using message passing based on the DARTS construction of
communication channels that connect worldlines. Ultimately there must be
maintained an implicit mapping between agent and function which the catalyst
viewpoint attempts to maintain as coherent by its behind the scenes influence. The
communication between functions is based on a dataflow model of what data each
function needs and how the functions interact with multiple pieces of data to create
information that is then written to datastores as products of information processing.
Thus all the methods come into play here. These methods are based on the minimal
embodiments so that this dynamical system is naturally an embodiment of all the
aspects of the turing machine and so all the results are fully computable.
This structure is, I believe, the simplest embodiment of a social simulation based on
the model of chaotic processes. Twin chaotic processes must be modeled in the
agent and function domain simultaneously and these must be connected via
explicitly social communication and implicit coordination by the Catalyst
viewpoint. This structure turns the static picture of the unfolding stages by which
General Systems Theory and the specialized systems theories presented in the last
essay into a dynamic system that is computable. Just because a structure is built to
function at the level of chaos does not mean that it in not necessarily computable.
This system as Goertzel says is quantum computable. What is unique here is the
way the two chaotic process models interact. That interaction is similar to the social
interaction of minimal social machines in which turing machines use their tapes as
communication channels. This is the macro model that corresponds to that micro
model of sociality. The two together produce a meta-model that operates at all the
emergent ontological levels from world down to primitive.
7. Actors and Groups
687
What you will notice about the proposed dual chaotic model of social praxis is that
it has two important limitations. Movement only occurs with respect to time and
cancellation is universal. In order to make this model more robust we need to
extend it so that movement also occurs in time and so that cancellation can be
limited. This will be done by appealing to the distributed parallel processing model
of Agha called “actors” and to the mathematical category of Groups.
In voting cancelation is applied on the basis of each against all at every level of the
functional hierarchy and for every criteria that potential agents might be judged
against. In order to model our functions and agents as macro quantum eventities we
need to limit and at the same time strengthen the cancellation process. This is done
by considering each species of agent and kind of work to be an element of a group.
In this case we will consider closed finite groups but semi-groups and rings could
be considered as well. Group theory supplies us with an explicit mechanism for
cancellation. Any two opposite group elements when brought together under the
group’s operation will cancel leaving only the identity element of the group. Any
element under the operation with the identity element yields that element again.
Other operations that combine two elements will always yield one of the group’s
elements. So finite groups are closed and this closure we can use to model the
closure of the autopoietic system. In a group of this kind cancellation only occurs
against certain defined opposite members of the group. Other members of the group
may transform under the operation but do not cancel. Also the group gives us a
natural definition of opposites. Every element of a group has an opposite. Thus
when agents or functions are defined using groups they have natural oppositions
which can be used to further define the members of the population of agents or
functions in relation to each other.
The model defined in the last section evolves through time but does not move.
Because of this it cannot be embodied in spacetime. In order to address this
shortcoming we will use the actor model for parallel distributed processing. Actors
are agents that do not have to be tied to processors. Actors can move and leave their
forwarding address on another processor. This ability of actors to roam around the
network of processors at will shows that agency is not tied to processing power. An
actor moves by leaving his forwarding address with the local post office within the
universal namespace. An actor is an object with its own thread of control. It
responds to messages in a queue. It processes messages in the order of arrival and
has the power to change modalities making only some of its operations active at any
one time. When it decides to move it sends a message to the post office of the node
688
it wishes to move to create a copy of itself there. When that copy is working in the
new environment then it sends a message back to its old self to deactivate. The old
self forwards all messages in its queue, notifies the post office of its new address
and then deactivates itself sending a message to the new self that it is now in
control. Using this means the actor can roam all over the territory of the network
and it will always be found by whoever knows of its existence because leaves a trail
of forwarding addresses. Actors are capable of inhabiting worldlines of causation in
spacetime and participating in scenarios of asynchronous communication with other
actors. Actors contain operations that can be controlled by its own internal
programs or expert system.
Now let us consider using the actor distributed parallel processing model in relation
to the model of chaotic social processes. The actor obviously unites both agency
and functionality. The agency is its independent thread of control. The functionality
is contained in the operations contained within the actor. But actors do not just do
their processing in one place. They can move from computing environment to
environment across a distributed network of linked processors migrating according
to the availability of computing resources. We extend the actor model by
postulating that the actor can produce multiple potential copies of itself when it
moves to a new site within the network. If we have a swarm of actors moving
together we posit that on establishing foothold in the new site they each produce
multiple potential copies of themselves and that these potential copies cancel out
before being activated to carry one as the actual actors that have abandoned the old
site for the new site. What we notice here is that built into the migratory mechanism
of the actor is exactly the kind of mechanism we need to support the movement
from actual to potential through propensity back to potential and finally into
actuality again that occurs in the chaotic model of social processes. The movement
of the actor out to the new site, establishment at the new site, notifying the old site
of establishment, and the abandonment of the old site is exactly fitted to represent
the situation where potential agents and functions are posited by and cancelled
before replacing the agents and functions of the last moment. So if we fold these
two models (actors and chaotic social processes) together we get an interesting
situation in which as actors the dual chaotic processes can roam through spacetime
fully embodied. If we consider that the functions are mapped into the operations of
the actors and that the agency is mapped into the control loop of the actor then we
can see how the migration of the actor can be seen as a production of new agents
and new functional operations each time they swarm to a new place in the network.
Functional parts of the hierarchy of virtual layered machines can be armed and
689
disarmed by using the modality aspect of the actor. Actors themselves may appear
as multiple copies of the same actor at the old site or they may appear as genetically
bred combinations of two or more actors using a genetic algorithm to generate new
copies with different combinations of functionality or rules for applying
functionality.
Having identified the Actor paradigm as our way of embodying agency and
functionality we can begin to speculate on what would happen if we applied this
paradigm along with group theory to augment our model of chaotic social
processes. First we can see that actors are inherently migratory and as they migrate
they socially interact to reproduce as a colony at the new site. So we will posit that
not one but a whole group of actors will migrate from site to site together across the
distributed network. As they are migrating they are also transforming themselves
through the self-generation of both agency and functionality. So the swarm of actors
will interact with each other in a particular computing environment. Then when
resources get tight or for some other internal reason they will decide to spawn. They
will send out frontiers men to the new environment. They will report back
environmental conditions. Then if it looks good for them as a new home they will
send out colonists. The colonists will be genetically bred based on the old
population at the old site but will represent a population of potential actors with
potential agency in the form of rules and potential functionality in the form of
operations. The colonists will undergo a process of cancellation based on group
theory until the new actual population for the new site is determined. Then the new
population will send back messages to their parents to abandon the old site at which
point the parents will die leaving the new population of the at the new site to carry
on until it is time for them to swarm.
Now when we imaging such a situation it immediately becomes clear that we might
have multiple species or multiple communities of these actors inhabiting the same
network and vying with each other for territory and thus migrating in relation to
each other across the network. In fact such communities might inhabit the same
processing node and interact in various ways. Such interaction might have some
causal ramifications which use the migrating actors as a medium and move through
the medium of the actors around the network. We will call such causal ramifications
that move perhaps faster or slower then the actual migrating populations karma
after the Hindu and Buddhist notion of causality that moves from life to life for a
single individual or population. We posit that karma is the equivalent of collusion
only for the global population of all communities of all species of actors. Karma is a
690
social phenomena where the social processes propagate causes even where the
agents and functions that generated those causes have long vanished. Thus collusion
has not just a synchronic but also a diachronic aspect. Similarly cancellation is not
just synchronic. We can posit that there can be a dialectical relation between
different species of actors that causes them to change based on their interaction at
each new site. Thus dialectical interaction between communities or species of actors
shall appear as a diachronic aspect of cancellation within the network of migrating
swarms of actors.
Now let us consider the role that groups might play in limiting cancellation. In the
prior model cancellation was all against all voting for both agents and functions.
We posit that such all against all voting does not embody any real structure of
opposition or cancellation within the model but merely allows us to imagine the
simplest case where there is not internal structure imposed on the population of
agents or functions. Instead we will imagine using finite groups as a means of
imposing structure wherein each agent or each function is represented as an element
in a group that might cancel with its opposite if is opposite should appear in the
same population with it. Now let us imagine that each species of actor is composed
of two or more sexes which mate through genetic algorithms to produce potential
actors at the next site. Let us posit that each sex is governed by a different group
structure of the same order of group. Now we will see that it is possible to use the
model presented by W??? in Change where group theory and logical types are
combined to produce a model of psychological change. Here we will instead be
using this same idea to produce a model of social change. Instead of just positing
that moving to a higher logical type is an escape from the dynamics of opposites in
groups we will posit that each level of higher logical typing has its own group
structure and that the levels of logical typing form a ring. This ring is composed of
each sex of the species of actor which we are using as an example. So for instance
there are five groups of order twenty. Each sex of a species of actors would do its
cancellation using one of these groups. There would exist a hypercycle between the
groups which would determine with sexes mated to produce how much of the new
generation. In this way the hypercycle of groups would give structure to the
autopoietic network which was constructing itself. The groups of each sex of the
species are closed and the hypercycle of the species is also closed. Thus the closure
of groups allows us to emulate both the autopoietic ring and the closure of the
autopoietic network.
In this way we see that the actor model organizes the outward relation of the
691
simulation of chaotic processes toward other embodied species while group theory
organizes the inward relation between sexes within the embodied species which
allows self-production to occur in a structured manner which naturally emulates the
autopoietic rings in relation to the autopoietic network. Adding movement in space
allows outward differentiation. Adding the constraints of group structure allows
inward differentiation. Together these two kinds of differentiation allows us to
complete our imagined simulation of chaotic social processes giving a new dynamic
dimension to artificial living intelligences which is clearly social based on the
foundations of reflexive autopoietic systems theory within the context of general
systems theory.
8. A Theory of Work as Social Action
Given this model of chaotic social processes the next question is what it tells us
about the world which we would not know otherwise. Our point has been to
develop a model of processes that do not assume continuity. Goertzel’s model does
this by allowing each function or agent to interact with all other functions or agents
to determine as a self-generating system what functions and agents will occur in the
next specious present moment. We noted that if both the agent and function aspects
of the self-generating system were chaotic, i.e. non-continuous, then the model
would be implicitly social. This means that function could not be used as a substrate
for agency or vice versa. Thus the self-generating system would be completely self-
destroying/self-producing from moment to moment. In this sense it must take on the
character of the emergent event which is the basic construct of genuine novelty
within our worldview. The fact that the four kinds of Being exist implicitly in the
model of chaotic processes makes if possible for every instant to be seen as a
possibility of the emergence of genuine novelty. Thus the discontinuousness of the
genuine emergent event underlies the model of chaotic processes which will allow
at any moment fundamental changes of interpretations of Being, epistemes,
paradigms, theories or facts (anomalies). All continuities are built up as collusions
between functions or agents but have no ontological necessity. In this model all
continuities need to be explained not the discontinuities (as with the process based
models). If we understand that species of agents or functions may interact such that
waves of causality pass through these various communities then it is possible to see
that karmic and dialectical effects across the intra-social medium are also possible
within the illusory strata of continuities that are projected upon the substrata of
chaotic change.
692
This model of chaotic social process gives us a fundamentally different perspective

on work and other social phenomena. It first tells us that emergence is the
fundamental phenomenon which organizes all other phenomena. When an emergent
event occurs we are seeing down through all the strata of illusory continuity to the
bedrock of existence where the whole world is re-created anew in each moment.
What we have to explain is why each moment is not a genuine emergence that
repatterns the whole of our worldview or some part of it. The fact that genuine
emergences are rare is a problem for this theory rather than the other way around
where genuine emergences are impossible to explain for process theory. Our
explanation why genuine emergence do not occur at each moment is that social
repression channels the energy that would allow that to occur in such a way that
creates illusions of stability and continuity. Deleuze and Guattari discuss this in
their master work Capitalism and Schizophrenia1. It is the channeling of creativity
within Western society which is the major dynamo for change within this society.
Creativity takes endless forms and is subject to sanctions if the forms it takes are not
acceptable in a particular context. This is why many times artists are not appreciated
in their lifetimes. What they are doing is so far out that the creative worth of their
“work” is not recognized until dominant patterns shift sufficiently to make it
possible for many people to see the value of what they have done. Yet many
creative works of others who remain unrecognized may continue to be eclipsed kept
under the sanction of being labeled crackpot or kook. Schizoanalysis removes all
these labels and looks at the works of everyone under same lens: How does it work?
How does the work of the everyday mundane worker, the recognized artist, the
nobel laureate, the crackpot or kook function within their lives as a conduit for their
life energies. Never mind what it means. Never mind how we label it. How do
“works” work? This word can be both noun and verb. As noun we see it as the
reified result or product of work. As verb we see it as the production process itself.
It is this “working” that is seen, as Baudrillard says, as the fundamental assumption
of all Western ideologies. And normally working is thought of as a process. It is
seen as praxis or the illusory continuity of actions that supports the illusory
continuity of words that is ideation. Instead we posit that the stream of actions are
not an illusory continuity of process but that “working” is rooted in primary process
which is the unity of non-dual thought, action and perception. That “working” is
intrinsically empty. But that at its base we apprehend it as it appears as a secondary
process in terms of self-organizing or autopoietic processes which are at their
foundation chaotic processes based on tendencies, propensities, or desires. These
1.Anti-Oedipus; Thousand Plateaus
693
“workings” are intrinsically social and emergent. Social construction of reality

basically turns the “workings” in on themselves in order to produce self-repression
which we call reflexivity. We orient our variety production to the expectations of
the other. As a result the illusory continuities of the social world are built up step by
step until we see that most people live their lives in a very uncreative fashion
according to the multiple constraints of the expectations of others. However, there
are certain sectors of society where creativity is unleashed. These sectors where
creativity is allowed are tightly controlled who is allowed to function within their
domains. One of these is engineering. We concentrate on engineering because it is
one realm of working which has been little studied by the sociological community.
The sociological community playing their role as a repressive agent of society
concentrates its study normally on manual labor. Or they may concentrate upon the
sociology of science in order to understand the elite knowledge workers. What
exists in the middle is pretty well ignored. But without engineering the two
extremes would have nothing to do. Scientists must use engineering to build their
elaborate experiments and skilled and unskilled manual laborers are directed in
their work by engineers who design the products and the production lines.
Engineering is not the most sublime work nor the most mundane but resides in the
middle of the spectrum. And we posit that the best model for this kind of work is the
chaotic process model we have developed based Goertzel’s Chaotic Logic.
When we look at engineering work we see that it is highly non-routine. Skilled and
unskilled manual labor is very routine and can normally be formed into a
production line kind of organization. Engineering work designs the processes and
products of the production line and for this reason has a different character which
we call non-routine. Hardware and Software engineering are partially routine and
partially non-routine whereas Systems engineering is almost wholly non-routine.
Scientific work tends to be episodic as well as non-routine. Engineering work is not
episodic in the sense that it tends to be project oriented and set on applying
scientific results. Scientific work seeks to add to our store of knowledge and what
will add to that store of knowledge is almost never known before hand. Scientific
work cannot be patented but only kept secret. Engineering work attempts to
formulate applications in specific situations for scientific knowledge. It normally
approaches such application not as an episode of knowledge production but as a
project of application building. We might define the episodic nature of scientific
production of knowledge in terms of Feyerabends dictum that “anything goes” as a
means to finding new knowledge. A scientific project would be broken into a series
of episodes in which different things were tried to attempt to gain new knowledge.
694
If a scientific project is run like an engineering project the likelihood of new things
being discovered is probably close to nil. (Which is not to say that most scientific
projects are not run this way.) An engineering project seeks to apply known
methods and known knowledges to an application development. It does so based on
estimates of the man power and time it will take to accomplish the task. In such
projects a special kind of environment may be set up in which teams, completely
oriented toward the production of a product, concentrate their effort toward a single
which must be brought into being step by step. The steps are called essential
transformation from intermediate product to intermediate product. Within this
context basic kinds of work arise and are recognized. My basic postulate is that
these kinds of work become self-organizing rings of autopoietic processes. Such
rings are not as prevalent in skilled and unskilled manual labor or in scientific work.
Scientific work normally concentrates on bringing knowledges into existence not
things. Manual labor concentrated on bringing things into existence but does not
treat that as a praxis guided by theory or if guided by theory places most of its
emphasis on the things not the theory. It is engineering work that blends equally
theory (as design) and practice (as prototyping) to achieve a balance in embodiment
which then may be produced on a production line to embody scientific knowledges
in embodied applications. It is interesting that manual labor tends to be somewhat
episodic as well and that is why manual laborers are hired by the hour instead of
being paid a salary. Manual laborers are seen as mutually replaceable. Scientists are
seen as having name recognition that goes with their contributions to the treasury of
knowledge. Engineers are effaced in our society in that they do not get name
recognition like designers of clothes but on the other hand it is recognized that they
are not mutually substitutable for other engineers because they are not all equally
creative or as intuitive in the dance of their non-routine attention within the
different kinds of work they perform. We might say that in our society the Scientists
are the full subjects who’s prestige is legitimized by their name recognition. Manual
laborers are fully repressed non-subjects who are as anonymous as the things that
travel down the production line from the point of view of social recognition.
Engineers stand between as anonymous creative agents who produce designs for
things and thus bring them from the realm of ideas into prototypes that can be
reproduced on a production line. Engineers are socially allowed to be creative in
their embodiment of things but are not expected to contribute to our knowledge
store. Thus engineers do not have to read and pay attention to what is happening in
their disciplines. But engineers are denied name recognition and social prestige.
Thus, the subjectivity of the engineer is blunted but not denied. Therefore they are
more capable of forming teams in which creativity is possible as a group activity.
695
Slowly as scientific projects get bigger and need multiple people to accomplish the
goals it is this form of creativity that is tapped in scientific projects as well. When
the science demands large scale engineering then this kind of teamwork that occurs
on engineering projects becomes the order of the day in science as well. But science
itself is not oriented toward teamwork as engineering is in our society.
Because engineering work is based on teamwork more than other kinds of work in
the spectrum of work between science and manual labor we can best look there to
understand the nature of teamwork -- which is basically goal directed small group
(social) work. Today the buzzwords to describe this are Integrated Product
Development (IPD) Teams or Concurrent Engineering Teams. Such teams attempt
to integrate work functions which traditionally would have been separated by
organizational boundaries. These teams are directed at a specific product and all the
kinds of work necessary to produce the product are focused to that end without
regard to organizational boundaries which enforce functional separations between
major kinds of work. On an IPD team systems, software, and hardware engineers
would work together sharing work responsibilities in order to most efficiently
produce the product under construction. Artificial separations between these
functions are no longer possible for economic and efficiency reasons. In this kind of
environment stable rings of essential transformations to products form and non-
routine sequences of enactment of these kinds of work are performed by teams of
cooperating systems, software and hardware engineers. Artificially separating
software in its own isolated process enclave makes no sense in this kind of
environment. It obscures the context within which software work is done which is
interpenetrated with systems and hardware work.
The chaotic (social) work process model gives us a new perspective on engineering
work and thus on all work and through that on all social action. It shows us that at
its base every action is patterned on the emergent event. Each action must be able to
transform into a genuinely novel thing within our worldview. It is effective social
repression that prevents that from occurring. Thus all continuities are not given but
are the result of a social collusion or conspiracy. Kinds of work have real
discontinuities between them and they can be enacted in any order that the
engineer’s intuition deems appropriate. It is sequential and linear action sequences
that need explaining because at core all actions contain within them their own
designs as theories embedded in praxis. It is this fact that all social actions contain
theories that allows work to be self-organizing. Actions must be designed first in
order for the products that result from actions to be designed. The realization of the
696
importance of process is this. Let us design the actions that lead to the designed
products so that the products can have higher quality. If the actions are ad hoc that
produce the designed products then the execution of the design within the product
will be poor. Products are only the accumulation of reified actions so process looks
at the actions and attempts to organize that in order to improve execution of the
products that are the result of actions. However, this does not mean that we want to
limit creativity within engineering. Creativity is socially sanctioned in engineering
and underwritten by the institution of patents. We do not want to make engineering
work any more non-routine because it is its nature to be driven by intuition not
procedures. However, what can be procedurized should be to get rid of unnecessary
variety and to assure uniformity in all those aspects of engineering work that can be
routinized. In this way the routine parts will act as a solid basis for the non-routine
and creative parts of the work. The endless unnecessary variety clouds the issue
obscuring the necessarily creative parts of the work. The ad hoc is applied to
everything instead of only those things that call for it. It is the fundamental concept
behind engineering work process that by clarifying the work that higher quality
products will be the result.
But in order to understand how to apply processes to work we need the model of
chaotic (social) work process that will allow any one action to become an emergent
event if necessary but then applies different amounts of repressive pressure to
reduce variety when it is not necessary to allow the illusion of continuity to appear
within the work as it is being done. In the autopoietic theory of work it is not the
external organization applying this repressive pressure on the inherent variety of
human production. Instead it is the team itself that exerts this repressive pressure.
This is how the team creates the apparent illusory continuity of its own continuity
through the work project. It is how the team unleashes individual and group
creativity when necessary in order to innovate or solve problems. The team is self-
organizing through the exertion of repression on itself. Repression is the
organization that takes the normally unfolding variety and exerts external controls
on it. But the unfolding variety of the production of the team also has its own
internal ordering which may need to over turn the externally imposed order
occasionally. Thus the interaction between the repressive order and the spontaneous
order is what allows the team to be just creative enough to solve their problems
without being so creative that the product is never done and finally produced. In
another section we spoke of this in terms of the interaction between Physus and
Logos. The internal ordering of embodiments can be seen as Physus and the
repressive ordering of designs exerted by the team can be seen as a modern
697
equivalent of logos. We saw before that there was a physus to the logos and a logos
of the physus. The physus of the logos is the ultimate non-representability of the
design due to the hidden presence of the Essence of Manifestation or the
unconscious of the design. The logos of the physus is the expressibility of the
unfolding of the physus which many times runs counter to the prevailing facts,
theories (designs), paradigms, epistemes, and interpretations of Being showing up
as anomalies. We noted that the split between physus and logos was unknown to the
Chinese who saw internal and external as mirrors of each other instead of as
different. Thus these two phenomena in the West appear as Chi and Li in Chinese
science. Thus we can see that primary process, as seen in work process, is primarily
a kind of manifestation endemic to Western culture. It is a kind of manifestation
that is bent on destruction. It must destroy in order to create anew. That new
creation takes place as an emergent event. Every action in work process is
potentially an emergent event of the arising of genuine novelty. However because
Western culture splits internal from external creating the illusion of a material
world of the practico-inert over against consciousness we get the separation of
physus from logos. The physus is seen as the spontaneous ordering of assemblages,
the autopoietic formation of desiring machines, which acts against and is controlled
by the logos of repressive control by ideation in the form of design and theory.
These two springs of ordering from writing via differAnce and from the logocentric
are really mutually complementary as the existence of the crossover categories
show. The physus has its own logos that appears in the anomalies that it throws up
in the process of embodiment against theory. The logos has its own physus that
appears as the mastery by Language itself of those who speak. In the dialectic
between upwelling variety produced by humans because of the resources implicit
within the structure of manifestation and the repression by logos there appears the
actual enacted work. Logos by attempting to describe the enacted work not just the
product has made new gains in its repressive will to power and domination of
production. But every thing that is described shows us more and more the
limitations of language for control. Too much knowledge is tacit and non-
representable in language. Thus the strengthening of the logos implies an equal
strengthening of the physus. Either we discover more about the underside of
language which controls us rather than the other way around as we might imagine;
or we discover that the physus itself is actually more self-organizing than we
thought. Autopoietic theory claims this in its constructivist moment. It claims that
theorizing and controlling through explicit representation actually prevents us from
seeing the implicit organizations of things themselves. We can only really discover
by constructing. Likewise we can only find the right processes for work by
698
constructing them as we work. Thus work must be inherently self-organizing and

cannot be effectively organized from the outside. This means that contrary to a basis
assumption of the SEI Capability Maturity Model, generic organization wide
processes are not efficient but are actually an interference with the operation of the
autonomous team who needs to be empowered to organize themselves adapting
directly to the work to be done and not applying standard work processes. The point
is that this organization of processes needs to be as conscious as the organization of
products. It is this awareness that has been missing before. The autonomous team
needs to be aware of the consequences of its process organization just as it attempts
to be as conscious as possible with the consequences of its product organization. In
engineering there is a constant tension between creativity and practicality that
process needs to help balance. It can only help maintain that balance by realizing
that human beings are inherently creative and that whenever they are not creative
this is because of the effectiveness of social repression. Thus every action has the
potential to bring down the whole worldview changing facts, theories (designs),
paradigms, epistemes, or interpretations of Being. What is left to be explained is
why this does not happen at each moment. How do illusory continuities become
socially constructed to repress this inherent creativity. That inherent creativity is
there because every moment is the assertion yet again of the entire Western
worldview. That worldview is based on creativity and dynamic clinging to things.
Thus every action must have the entire substructure of manifestation all the way
down to the bedrock of primary process available to it as a resource. The model of
chaotic social processes allows us to theorize self-generating systems that do have
this entire substructure of manifestation built in. So this model may serve as a
theoretical guide for studying work processes as the epitome of social processes.
What we get that we did not have before is a theoretical perspective on work or any
social action that shows us the entire substructure of manifestation that underlies it.
Processes that assume continuity are repressive of discontinuities and anomalies
which are an inherent part of manifestation. Chaotic processes give us a full picture
of the depth of manifestation as it appears in work. People who are working are
manifesting things everyday. Enacted processes must be able to address the full
range of manifestation including creativity and innovation as well as breakdowns in
processes. Stopping at statistical control makes no sense when trying to control
non-routine work. Non-routine work is many times unique or its execution is done
by a unique path. We need to approach it using deeper fuzzy and chaotic
mathematical techniques that correspond to deeper layers of the meta-levels of
Being.
699
9. Macro Quantum Mechanics
Now I would like to breach an important theoretical question. Goertzel describes

self-generating systems as quantum computable. We have seen that we can
construct a model that is fundamentally social if we take two such self-generating
systems and make them operate in tandem. Similarly we saw that we can take two
turing machines and make them communicate across a light tape and produce a
minimal social machine. Those minimal social machines may be represented by
actors that embody the chaotic agents and functions that swarm from moment to
moment within spacetime. But we have not related any of this to what we actually
experience. We constructed social phenomenology as a means of understanding
how the world unfolds form the collective unconscious but that remained a vague
promise of a solution to the problem of intersubjectivity. Now we will attempt to
make that promise come true by exploring the depth of the model of chaotic
processes and looking closely at its quantum computability. Quantum mechanics is
the most proved theory in existence. Myriad engineered products in our culture
operate on the basis of quantum effects. These are engineering wonders based on a
very solid scientific foundation which is counter intuitive within our worldview.
Things ought to be particles or waves but they remain undecidable until we look at
them. Thus we are involved through our observation in the way the phenomenon
manifests to us. We say that the observation disturbs the phenomenon under
observation. We go on to erect a wall between ourselves and this fuzzy undecidable
realm which is too small to see. This wall is called the Copenhagen Hypothesis that
states that quantum things operate on different principles than things in our macro
environment. In this way we attempt to preserve our worldview from crumbling in
the face of overwhelming evidence from physical sciences that the whole universe
in every aspect manifests according to quantum mechanical laws. Here I propose to
eliminate this wall and the discontinuity in the universe that it attempts to produce.
It is clear that the whole universe is quantum mechanical and the fact that we do not
experience this in our lifeworld is in fact an illusion. In effect we see illusory
continuities papering over the natural discontinuities in existence that occur at the
macro level as well as the micro level. The case for this is made very well by Robert
G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne in Margins of Reality. In this book they explore
paranormal phenomenon based on the theory that quantum mechanics describes the
macro level of reality within which we operate in the everyday world as well as the
micro scale phenomena. They propose that reality is the interface between the
internal (realm controlled by Logos) and the external (realm controlled by Physus).
It is information that passes across this boundary between the realms of physus and
700
logos. They go on to postulate that consciousness is not just a particle isolated in

certain kinds of bodies within spacetime but that it also acts as a wave. Thus they
adduce that consciousness has the same undecidable nature as things. This is a very
thought provoking postulate. Accordingly consciousness is not completely confined
to the potential well surrounding the body of the living organism imposed by the
Physus on the Logos. Like quantum mechanical waves it consciousness waves can
escape and act beyond the potential well of the body. Let us refer to this action
beyond the body of consciousness as the aura. They speak of probability-of-
experience waves instead of probability-of-observation waves.
Our proposition, then, is to represent consciousness in terms of probability-of-
experience waves, posed in generalized consciousness coordinates, in much the
same spirit as the probability-of-observation waves employed by quantum
mechanics in physical space-time. In the absence of environmental constraints or
interactions, these consciousness waves range freely over their own space-time
domains, somewhat like the physical waves that ride the open ocean surface or those
that propagate sound or light over large unbounded regions. But if a particular
consciousness wave is confined to some sort of “container,” or “potential well,”
representative of the environment in which that consciousness is immersed,
characteristic patterns of standing waves, or eigenfunctions, will be established that
represent the experiences of that consciousness in that situation.
The dominant features of this environmental container are assumed to be associated
with the living physical body upon which, for one mortal span, the particular
consciousness wave has come to be centered. The basis physiological components
is embellished by various proximate environmental details, both tangible and
abstract, including physical surroundings, social context, other nearby
consciousnesses, and to a lesser degree, by more remote or global factors. Since all
of these components are subject to change as the physical corpus matures, moves
about, or interacts with other consciousnesses, or as the physical or social contexts
chance, and since the consciousness itself is continually changing, the
eigenfunctions of experience are also constantly being altered. Nonetheless, at any
point in this evolution they represent the tangible consequences of the
consciousness/environment interaction, in much the same spirit as the atomic
eigenfunctions of physical theory represent the observable properties of those
systems. In other words, they define the consciousness atom.
In this view, any community of interacting personalities, rather than resembling a
gas-kinetic ensemble of sharply localized and impenetrable particles [Lebniz’s
Monads], takes the form of a complex interplay of consciousness standing wave
patterns, each centered in one of the corresponding myriad of mobile environmental
containers. Every one of these wave-mechanical consciousness atoms is capable of
interacting with its neighbors and with other aspects of its environment by all of the
means available to the analogous physical wave systems, including wave-
mechanical collisions, interatomic radiation, evanescent wave tunneling, or escape
701
to free wave status. Each of these forms of interaction bears its own metaphorical
correspondence to various facets of normal or anomalous communication.1
What we notice about this analogy is that where it uses Quantum Mechanics to
extend our understanding of consciousness beyond Lebniz’s monads to help us
understand its wave-like nature it still sticks to the assumptions that subjectivity is
tied directly to the body. If we augment the insights of Jahn and Dunne with
autopoietic theory especially one that strives to understand reflexive autopoietic
systems then we get a different and perhaps more interesting picture. Let us not
assume the tie of consciousness to the body. Let us instead assume that it is the
social group that creates the potential well and that the individual consciousness is
just a deformation within the social potential well. Now we see that the atom that
they are describing is naturally part of a larger molecule of the socius. Let us also
extend down a level and assume that each individual consciousness potential well
also has deformations within it which can take contain standing waves. These lower
level deformations could be identified with Deleuze and Guattari’s desiring
machines. At this point we realize that the surface of the potential well is important.
What is the nature of that surface? Is it perhaps a configuration of tendencies,
propensities, and desires? If that were the case then we would see that this model
unifies the levels of desiring machines, individual tied to organism and socius tied
to embodied group. Thus we get a more natural fractal patterning of the well of
consciousness. At the level of desiring machines their is the actual workings of the
machinery that connects together autopoietically into networks that exhibit the
workings of autopoietic rings. At the level of the individual there is the internal talk
of thoughts and feelings studied by introspection which gloss over the
fragmentation of desiring machines and attempt to forge the ideal unity of the
subject. At the level of the socius there is the lostness in the chatter of the They (das
Mann). Some individuals can rise up an assert their subjectivity over against the
group becoming the tyrant but this eventually turns into capitalist structures which
are the nihilistic war of the all against the all economic means that sometimes turns
into actual warfare. Capitalism is the sign of the impossibility for any tyrant to hold
sway over the whole of the group indefinitely. It manifests as democracy or the rule
by the lowest common denominator. All this is explained in excruciating detail in
Anti-Oedipus. ‘
Here we are concerned with the implications of this quantum model of

consciousness which by our fractal elaboration shows us how individual
1.Margins of Reality pages242-3
702
consciousness appears out of the socius and differentiates into desiring machines.
The model of social machines is merely the realization that the level of the socius is
not disconnected from the psychological level but that they are two sides of the
same coin. Desiring machines organized themselves in a social field spontaneously.
The individual may be seen as an illusory point of tension between these two levels
of the articulation of the same field. Or we can say that all the levels of the field’s
articulation are equally important. Deleuze and Guattari merely devalue the
individual level because it has been traditionally overvalued as the seat of
subjectivity (illusory ideal unity). Given this field interpretation then it becomes
more clear how the collective unconscious plays against the individual unconscious.
Due to the tunneling and overflow effects which can occur when the intensity of
consciousness rises, the consciousness of a desiring machine may overflow or
tunnel into that of another desiring machine. The sum total of all overflow and
tunneling from desiring machines is the apparent wholeness of consciousness over
and above the connections of desiring machines. Due to the tunneling and overflow
effects which can occur when the intensity of consciousness rises, the
consciousness of an individual autopoietic (living/cognitive structurally
homeostatic being) may overflow or tunnel into that of another autopoietic
machine. The sum total of all overflow and tunneling from individuals is the
apparent wholeness of the consciousness over and above the connections between
individuals. Likewise we can imagine that society is itself a fractal formation with
many levels all the way up the planetary man1. The complete intersubjective cohort
of all living individuals on the planet. The collective unconscious is all the
interaction that the individual is not conscious of but which they are unconsciously
party to through their own overflow and tunneling of consciousness outside their
bodies. And if consciousness can overflow and tunnel out then it must be possible
for it to inflow and tunnel in. This is why anthropological and psychological
literature is replete with examples of possession and hypnotic suggestion. Our
barriers by which we manage our selves to make them appear unified and coherent
are very strong. But persons with less well defined boundaries would be more
susceptible to overflowing and tunneling phenomena of probability-of-experience
waves. The individual awareness moves from desiring machine to desiring
machine. These lower level “fundamental particles” of consciousness stick out
orthogonally from the unconscious. They are connected, disconnected and
reconnected in autopoietic networks and through that the boundary of the individual
is formed as an autopoietic cognitive/living closed system. But closure from a
1.See Desan; Planetary Man
703
particulate view is balanced by the openness from a wave point of view. Thus the
autopoietic system as dissipative appears as openly-closed. Closed monads that
Lebiniz identified from a particulate viewpoint and open and communication
despite closure from the wave viewpoint. Within the potential wells of desiring
machines standing waves may be created. These standing waves are repeated
patterns of behavior -- obsessions or habits. When the network of desiring machines
is restructured then the standing waves will take on different formations depending
on the structure. These are like the modalities of the actors. Thus habits are not
fixed completely but depend on the configuration of the network of other desiring
machines and their habits. When we move up to see the whole network as a gestalt,
a showing and hiding system, then we see the whole individual as a field of
consciousness. Remember consciousness is merely another way to say
manifestation that is viewed from the point of view of a subject. We do not have to
assume that the individual is unified as idealistic metaphysicians normally do. We
do not have to assume that only material causes have any reality as materialistic
metaphysicians do. Both logos and physus are a single non-dual manifestation to us.
Thus we posit that within the potential well of the individual that occurs within the
boundaries of the autopoietic cognitive/living system there is another level of
standing waves. These standing waves are the major cycles of consciousness that
forms the background on which attention wanders from figure to figure within the
gestalt of manifestation. Consciousness is divided into conscious and unconscious.
But this merely signifies the difference between figure and background. In truth all
the desiring machines are operating concurrently. Attention wanders sometimes
serially sometimes erratically from desiring machine to desiring machine. All the
desiring machines that are not the center of current attention or within short term
memory for immediate acquisition are in the unconscious ground upon which all
the figures appear. When we say that each of the desiring machines stick
orthogonally out of the unconscious we are really referring to the quantum
discontinuous structuring of consciousness in which every desiring machine
appears as a figure from the ground of all the others. The desiring machines are not
all available at once. They are not present-at-hand. Instead they may lie at different
levels of manifestation being instead ready-to-hand (in the short term memory), or
in-hand (in long term memory which must be accessed and discontinuously jumped
around in) or out-of-hand (inaccessible). Thus the network of desiring machines
takes on the structure of what Goertzel calls the dual network. It is a network of
micro probability-of-experience waves that represents either a control hierarchy or
an associative heterarchy.
704
When we look instead out at the socius we see the opposite. There we have no
access to the desiring machines of others. Thus the associative connection does not
work. There we have no control over others by direct means as we do over our own
body. Thus the control mechanism does not work. Instead the whole scheme is
inverted. What we see within the socius are standing waves of kinds of work or
social action. Those standing waves may appear as a complex chaotic attractor in
which multiple individuals are conspiring to recreate themselves moment to
moment through a complex reflexive autopoietic dance. The different individuals
are accessing communal experience by acting on the basis of those predefined
forms of action. When they do this dance together it forms a lifecycle or ritual
performance where multiple participants are dancing together a complex
interwoven and perhaps improvised dance that enacts shared experiences by
moving from one configuration of the standing wave within the potential well of the
socius to another. In this way we see why the two ways of viewing the dual network
are necessary. From the viewpoint of the socius it is the kinds of work, or social
action, that map the chaotic attractor that is important and is thus hierarchial. On the
other hand to the individual attempting to assert his coherence as a subject it is
control that is important and must be operated in a unified way as a hierarchy. For
the socius the actual coordination in time can be lax and so it appears as a lifecycle
where phases give rough coordination between individuals. Exact timing is not
usually possible without entrainment through mutually coordinated action that
resonates harmonically. It is entrainment that allows mutually coordinated standing
waves within the socius to be built up over time. It is through entrainment that
autopoietic rings are produced in teams. Such entrainment causes a mutual social
trance to engulf the individuals within the socius and this makes communication
highly efficient because the entropy is reduced as soliton like waves circulate within
the closed trough of the reflexive autopoietic system.
Now slowly we begin to see how the concept of macro quantum mechanics of
consciousness begins to bring together many of the models we have been dealing
with in this series of essays. We further note that intention and embodiment appear
on every level of the fractal potential well of consciousness (manifestation). This
means that the dual chaotic process models also apply giving a dynamic aspect to
our static model of the macro-quantum mechanical system. Desiring machines have
intention and embodiment. In fact we can say based on our analysis of Johannson
that what desiring machines do is take fields of tendencies and produce intentions.
It takes an embodiment of a machine to produce an intention out of a field of
tendencies. There must be a mechanism to do the vector addition. When we take
705
desiring machines together we get the matrix algebra of intention vectors. That
matrix algebra may either be arithmetic or logical as we have seen. So embodiment
and intentionality go hand in hand. The embodiment is the means of processing the
intention producing it out of tendencies. Or the embodiment produces actions out of
sets of intentions. In this second step it is possible to take into account the intentions
of others in the calculus of intentions as G.H. Mead suggests we do taking the
reaction or intentions of the other into account and even averaging the reactions of
the others into a generalized other. The generalized other is our internal picture of
the socius. It does not need to be a continuous average but may be discontinuous
lumping people into typifications as Alfred Schutz suggests. At each level
autonomy and intention play against each other so we can apply the model of
chaotic self-generating systems to every level. But we do not have to stop at
considering them only as systems we can consider them to be any level of the
emergent ontological hierarchy -- primitives, objects, systems, meta-systems,
domains, worlds, universes and pluriverses. Thus each level of the ontological
emergent hierarchy can be used as a means of interpreting the self-generating things
that appear at each level of the fractal potential well that descends from the
planetary man down to the socius, then the individual, and finally to the desiring
machines.
For example, borrowing the physical nomenclaure, consciousness collisions can be
catalogued as
a) elastic, wherein two interacting partners, after some transitory distortions, return
to their original configurations with no permanent influence on the state of either
participant;
b) inelastic, wherein the interaction permanently alters the state of one or both of the
participants; or
c) reactive, wherein the basic character of the colliding system is altered, as in the
formation of a composite consciousness “molecule” displaying quite different
experiential characteristics form its atomic constituents [like marriage, for
instance].
Similarly, a consciousness “radiation” metaphor may be developed, wherein
“photons” of information are transmitted from one individual to others throughout
the community, to accomplish normal, or anomalous, forms of communication.
The process of evanescent wave penetration or “tunneling” may also represent
various types of anomalous information acquisition, including remote perception or
remote PK effects. As sketched in Figure IV-3, standing wave patterns in the finite
potential wells are accompanied by some disturbances in the adjacent regions, even
thought the waves cannot propagate there. These evanescent waves can nevertheless
convey limited information to and from other portions of the external environment,
706
to a degree dependent on the details of the particular wave systems, and on the extent
of the barriers separating them.
If any of the standing wave systems acquires sufficient energy to be elevated from
the cavity-bound to free-wave status, it may gain access to all consciousness space-
time and interact with any other center in the configuration via that mode. Thus, this
route could accommodate a variety of anomalies, including remote perception and
remote man/machine interactions, as well as more extreme and controversial
phenomena such as mystical union, out-of-body experiences, mediumship, and
spiritual survival.1
Figure 132: Evanescent Wave Penetration of Potential Barrier2
Primary Standing
Waves in Potential Profile
Potential Well V(r)
Leakage Waves
Outside Barrier
Evanescent Waves
Within Potential Barrier
Through this series of possible interactions we see that our concept of a desiring
machine or and individual autopoietic system or any reflexive autopoietic socius is
probably not fluid enough. We tend because of our language to think of things that
are either nouns or verbs. Things do actions. There must be a solid particulate core
to the dynamics. But noun-verbs like “work” may cover more wavelike formations.
When we look at the workings of work at-work on the various works we may
consider that any kind of “work” may take on any of these relations to other kinds
of work or social action. Two works might interact elastically as when we have a
meeting to discover what everyone is doing and we all find out that what we are
1.Margins or Reality pages244-5

2.Margins or Reality pages245
707
doing severally makes sense. But at such a meeting we might discover that what we
are all doing does not make sense so the configuration of work is changed. Or we
might completely reconfigure who is doing what in which case the interaction
might be seen as reactive in which the very field of work is changed. In work the
transmittal of information symbolically or semiotically is continuous. When what
we do is computable we can see this is as analogous to the two turning machines
establishing a protocol across a light path. In an autopoietic standing wave within
the socius the transmission of information packets moves around the ring of the
kinds of work in the ring in both directions as a closed loop. This leads to very
efficient information exchange and processing because the information packets
flow like soliton waves in a circular channel. All other forms of communication
degenerate from that pinnacle of efficiency in which there is complete harmonic
resonance within the field of information flow. It is only with tunneling that we
begin to see anomalous effects that we have difficulty explaining in terms of work
processes. Tunneling is information leakage for one kind of work to another where
it does not necessarily belong but on the outcome it still has an effect. For instance,
a rumor that their is going to be a reduction of staff by 30% will effect all kinds of
work very detrimentally. Tunneling might be seen as analogous to rumors at the
social level. At the level of the individual it may be seen in terms of random
thoughts about other non-work related subjects. Lots of tunneling causes high
background noise and makes it impossible to concentrate. Controlling tunneling is
important both within the individual and in the socius. In trance it is possible for
groups of people to have a mutual hallucinating. This overflowing of the boundaries
of the self is the phenomena studied by Cannetti in Crowds and Power and indicated
by Heidegger when he talks about lostness in the They (Das Mann). Group
consciousness is also studied by Sartre in Critique of Dialectical Reason. In all
these cases the hunting pack or the revolutionary social group is seen as the basic
unit of society where the social predominates over the individual. In Sartre’s
revolutionary social group individuals act like nodes in a constantly reorganized
autopoietic network. He sees this as the basic social structure underlying all other
social forms that are seen as reifications of this exemplification of Wild Being
within the social emergent level. Likewise we posit that the social is prior to the
individual and that the individual reifies itself from the social group as a socially
constructed entitiy. Thus we cannot say that the calculus of intentions within the
individual is primary as Goertzel, Johannson, and G.H. Mead suggest. Instead we
say that the collective unconscious prior to the formation of individuals is primary.
As Deleuze and Guattari suggest the social filed acts first directly on the level of
desiring machines by inscription on the body directly. Then out of that the
708
subjectivity is forged as the body of the tyrant arises in the social field of bodies.
This then degenerates into complete deterritorialization of the capitalist system
where all the tyrants vie to be king of the mountain and none can hold it or perhaps
degenerates occasionally into totalitarianism where tyranny appears again in a
systematic form as with fascism or Stalinism. The overflowing from the individual
into the socius is a natural occurrence because the socius is primary as an economy
of desiring machines which disregards at first the economy of bodies. The socius
can also overflow into higher levels of the social fractal as when small groups are
engulfed in nationalism or some other ideology.
When we apply the model of dual self-generating systems to our model of

consciousness (manifestation) as a potential well between the physus and logos
domains we get an interesting picture of how both autonomy and intentionality
would act as self-generating systems at each fractal level. At the lowest level we
have autonomous desiring machines producing intentions out of tendencies and
producing intentional actions out of tendencies. The intentions would be self-
generating and the desiring machines would also be self generating to provide a
completely chaotic non-continuous model. At the level of the individual we would
get the intentions of the individual and the autonomous actions of the individual as
separately self-generating systems. The repertory of actions available are constantly
self-generating and the set of intentions being realized in a coherent manner is
constantly self-generating. At the level of the socius it would be the roles of the
individuals and the social goals that would be self-generating independently. The
interface between these two self-generating systems at each level reveals the
catalyst viewpoint which is the source of the endless variety. The catalyst viewpoint
is opposite the essence of manifestation that never appears. One is the extreme
positive intensity of the system and the other is the extreme negative intensity of the
system. The essence of manifestation is identified by Sartre with the practico-inert
(matter). Deleuze and Guattari call matter the body-without-organs degree of
intensity zero. As the intensity rises we move from the essence of manifestation to
the Catalyst viewpoints. Both views make the physus a blank substrate for human
action. Instead we see that physus and logos are two sides of the same upwelling
that defines the surface of the potential well of consciousness (manifestation). All
that really exists is the surface of the well itself where the sparks of tendencies
appear as virtual particles continuously being created and destroyed. This continual
creation and destruction of opposites that cancel via group-like operations at the
surface where logos and physus interact, the surface that Jahn and Dunne call
reality, is normally perfectly symmetrical and conservative. This symmetricality is
709
the hallmark of the unconscious as Matte Blanco points out1. It is when

asymmetries through symmetry breaking occur that manifestation which is
conscious occurs. The individual unconscious (Id) and the collective unconscious
are merely different depths of this symmetry that Deleuze and Guattari call the
body-without-organs. By depth we mean different levels of the fractal pattern in the
potential well circumscribing the realm of logos. But we may say that both the
physus and the logos are mysterious and it is only at the surface between the two
that we get the effect of lighting that allows us to see what lies in the potential well
as a clearing in being.
As has been said before we take Thebes as paradigmatic for the socius. Thebes
suffers under several terrible and inauspicious anomalous phenomena. It has the
plague that effects its physus. It has the oracles of Teresius and Apollo that are
manifestations of the pure speech of the Gods that reveal the future and the
fatedness of its King in a logos from beyond this world. It has the Sphynx that who
is a monster that speaks and asks riddles. That monster might be seen to be a
combination of logos and physus. It has the mystery of the murder of the king
which is slowly revealed through words the roots of action. Both the riddle and the
mystery are half-way houses between logos and physus. The revelations to Oedipus
take place within the context of the city which is in turmoil and is fated to be the
place where the fundamental taboo is broken. The breaking of the incest taboo and
the taboo against killing the father are mirrored in the anomalies that occur within
the city. Those anomalies occur in such a way to define the difference between
logos and physus. They also highlight the physus in the logos (riddles) and the
logos in the physus (mystery). In our model ordeal of Oedipus is completely bound
within the situation of the city. The connection between the situation within the
socius and the self-discoveries within the lifeworld of Oedipus is that they are a
single potential well so that the anomalies for the city are the manifestation of the
broken taboos within the family of Oedipus and the two fields are completely bound
together. What are normal desires for Oedipus as a king are discovered to have
manifested in perverse ways unknown to him -- in fact even as he has attempted to
avoid that perversion foretold. Those perversions in private with his mother and in
the wilderness with his father caused perturbations in the field of the socius long
before anything was noticed to be astray by Oedipus and Jocasta. Oedipus is the one
who is able to pursue the truth even to his own destruction. He delves into the truth
of his own actions in the context of his lost genealogy. Likewise he answers the
1.Ignacio Matte Blanco; The Unconscious as Infinite Sets: An Essay in bi-logic; (London: Duckworth, 1975)
710
riddles of the Sphinx. In both cases he is the answer, himself. He is a man

transforming from four to two to three legged. And he is a club-footed one who
carries the sign of his birth that hampers his walking. He is the criminal that he
swears he will find to end the plague of the city. He is the fated one who will fulfil
all the oracles. All the questions that impinge on the socius point back to him. This
perfect fit between the questions that impinge on the socius, the city of Thebes, and
the way they find their answer in Oedipus is an example of the total embeddedness
of the individual within the socius as within a field. The individual operates within a
field of tendencies. In the case of Oedipus the field of tendencies have turned in on
each other to form a singularity. But this only serves to define the limiting situation
where the field collapses in on itself. That collapse can be identified with the
emergent event. In this case it is the advent of Oedipus at Thebes that is the
emergent event. Oedipus appears at the gates of Thebes and confronts the Sphinx.
Then he enters and takes the place of the recently killed king. Then the plague
descends. Then the oracle arrives and Oedipus the new king swears to find the one
who has broken the taboo which has caused the plague. Finally self-discovery
occurs that leads to exile from the adopted city. Oedipus arises as a phenomena that
enters the gates of the city and flourishes and then declines to leave the gates of the
city as a blind exile. But the city as an intersubjective cohort -- the socius -- exists as
the context in which this emergent phenomena appears. That field develops an
anomaly that Oedipus steps into and fulfills the conditions in a perfectly reciprocal
manner that displays vividly the difference between logos and physus and the
mixtures of these two fundamental kinds of manifestation that have from the
beginning conditioned the Western view of reality. Even Deleuze and Guattari do
not recognize the way in which the myth of Oedipus support their theory of the
socius even thought they have delved deeply into the Oedipal Complex in their
study.
711
Figure 133:
standing
waves
Socius
autopoietic
Individual
Desiring Machines
Fractal Potential Wells
10. Quality and Quantity
The model of Jahn and Dunne of Macro Quantum Mechanics which posits that the
laws of Quantum Mechanics apply to the macro-world as well as the micro-world
and denies the Copenhagen hypothesis has a fatal flaw. When we read it we see that
the attempt to define metrical concepts for consciousness similar to those applied to
physical phenomena appear ridiculous. These metrical concepts are necessary in
order to make a complete isomorphic transformation of the theory from the realm of
physus to that of logos. What Jahn and Dunne do not realize is that the theory in the
realm of consciousness must be the dual of Quantum Mechanical theory and not an
isomorphic rendering. There are no basis for metrics within consciousness.
Consciousness cannot be quantified because there is nothing to lay down the marks
on that make metrics possible. The Buddhists, masters of introspection, have long
realized this by saying that there are five Skandas that make up consciousness. Four
of these (sensation, synthetic objects, will, and cognition) are Arupas (without
form) while only one are Rupas (forms). They say that the Arupas are like space
712
itself, i.e. it has no place to put marks for measurement. We must use physical
things or forms to create instruments for measurement of space. Without
instruments even space on which we project real number lines is immeasurable. The
problem of the Arupas of consciousness is that there is no way to construct such
measurement instruments which would render consciousness measurable in a
quantitative way. We can measure brain waves from the outside but there is no way
yet discovered to measure consciousness from within. But this really only means
that our concept of quantitative measurement does not apply. Instead the dual of the
micro-quantum that is partially susceptible to quantitative measurement is a macro-
quantum theory that is based on qualitative instrumentation. We cannot really call
this qualitative instrumentation measurement so we will call it qualitative
reckoning. As with the external micro-quantum theory this realm within the
clearing of being where logos reigns is only partially susceptible qualitative
reckoning. The qualitative reckoning of probability-of-experience wavicles is the
dual of the quantitative measurement model of probability-of-observation wavicles.
The exploration of Quality except for the work of Pepper1 has not been pursued
with any vigor within the Western tradition. Persig2 points to it as a fundamental
category who identifies it with the Greek Arte that is derived from Rta the
fundamental Indo-european concept from which derives our concept of what is
Right. Pepper associates Quality with the act which elaborates on the work of G.H.
Mead and contrasts it with the Concept.
1.Stephen C. Pepper; Concept and Quality (La Salle: Open Court, 1967)
2.Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
713
Table 22: a
Qualitative Categories Conceptual Categories

A. Categories for a A. Categories for a
single qualitative strand single complete act of
(e.g., drive quality). purposive behavior in
“objective” terms.
1. Felt quality with dynamic 1. Bodily Action and tension
surge for action. pattern arising from internal
bodily chances, or environ-
mental stimulation (the drive
impulse).
2. Duration of the quality 2. Continuity through a period
yielding a continuous qualita- of time.
tive strand.
3. Intensity of quality felt as 3. Energy of measurable
dynamics of activity. quantity observable as kinetic
energy in overt action or con-
ceived as potential energy in
states of bodily tension.
4. Reference to goal felt in the Vector character of bodily
dynamic quality. energy indication along with
bodily changes conditions for
dissipation of energy or its
maintenance in a steady state.
5. Blockage from environ- 5. Interaction with environ-
mental strands. mental activities.
6. Splitting of dynamic refer- 6. Vector changes due to
ence to charge instrumental interaction with environment,
strands with their felt refer- and channeling of energy for
ences to instrumental goals shortest pat through response
towards attainment of goal of mechanisms for final dis-
drive. charge of energy, or mainte-
nance of steady state.
7. Selection of instrumental 7. Selection of response
strands towards attainment of mechanisms for discharge of
final goal. energy or maintenance of
steady state.
8. Positive feeling of satisfac- 8. Quiescence pattern of
tion in terminal act or quies- responses of energy for the
cence pattern (and, in drive impulse.
blockage, negative feeling of
dissatisfaction).
a.Concept and Quality pages 28-30
714
Table 23: a

B. Categories of context B. Categories of
of qualitative strand. physical structure.
1. Simultaneity of diverse 1. Body of organism.
strands.
2. Articulation of successive 2. Articulation of behavior of
strands in an integrated total organism in an integrated act.
act.
3. Anticipations and appre- 3. Dynamic Dispositions such
hensions as felt dispositions as physiological sets available
for action. for action upon proper simu-
lation.
4. Fusion -- the merging of 4. (null)
qualities of diverse strands
into a new distinct quality
instituting a qualitative strand
in its own right.
Specious present -- field of 5. (null)
immediacy.
Table 24: a

C. Categories of C. Categories of
qualitative range. physical environment.
1. Actual present and Real 1. Space-time
past and future.
2. Controlling environment of 2. Configurations of matter in
strands -- for any qualitative space-time.
strand in action -- the actuality
and reality of the situation.
Pepper uses the purposive act as his fundamental metaphor for building his synoptic
view of the world. He sets up the quality of consciousness of the act over against the
intersubjective conceptual objectification of the act. For every category within
consciousness he has an objective category except where he finds there is no
objective correlate which occurs in two cases. Basically we can say that what
Pepper calls “conceptual” is the treating of consciousness from a behavioral point
715
of view which we can say is a reduction of logos to physus. What this does do is
focus our attention on embodiment of consciousness in acts of the body. He is
taking as his reference the social behaviorism of G.H. Mead and the psychology of
Wm. James not the crude behaviorism of Skinner and other proponents of complete
objectivization of psychology which is what destroyed introspectionism as a valid
approach to understanding consciousness and set back psychology for many years.
With the discovery of altered states of consciousness the pendulum started swinging
in the opposite direction and transpersonal psychology was among other similar
directions that attempted to deal directly with consciousness. What Pepper realized
is that the internal experience of the act via strands of quality is the dual of the
external view of the objectified act. His categories attempt to establish the grounds
of that duality. The act moves through an arc from the disposition to act through to
quiescence in which it either succeeds or fails from the point of view of the actor.
Externally we only see the quiescence and do not know what feelings are associated
with that quiescence. One problem with Pepper’s schema of the act is that it only
considers the potential and the actual. He conflates dispositions with possibilities in
his analysis and does not separate out the propensities to act from the possibilities.
Also his external description is deterministic and does not take into account
probabilities. Thus the different kinds of act which have their basis in different
kinds of Being and should be described with different kinds of mathematical tools
are not separable for Pepper. Also he takes as his paradigm the purposive act and
does not consider the non-purposeful acts or meditative non-actions.
Table 25:
Pure Presence Being1 Purposive Act with goal

2
Process Being Flow of Action without goal.
Performance for its own sake.
Hyper Being3 Invocation of states moving
from action complex to action
complex across discontinui-
ties of action types. Bound-
aries between kinds of action
defined.
716
Table 25:
Wild Being4 Playfulness. Spontaneous gift

giving. Innovation and Cre-
ativity. Radical anomalies and
jewels of rare and exquisite
order.
Emptiness -- the unthinkable Meditation -- stopping
thought -- non-action -- non-
dual thought, perception, and
action.
If we expand upon Pepper’s list of acceptable kinds of action aligned with the kinds
of Being then we begin to get a picture of what is missing in his presentation. What
we can say is that as we go down this table of kinds of acts then dispositions
become more and more important. In the purposive act the dispositions appear as a
raw potential out of which the act arises. But when we realize that it is possible to
have actions that are pure performance like Tai Chi movements then we see that
when goals disappear then dispositions that appear in the course of the act itself
become more important. When we move to the next more basic kind of action at the
meta-level of Hyper Being then it is the discontinuities between kind of acts that
become important and the dispositions are the what make us move from one kind of
act to another specific kind of act across the discontinuities between actions. Finally
if one goes on to define acts that operate at the meta-level of Wild Being then we
see dispositions as pure tendencies in the field of the socius which have a playful
quality. This kind of action appears right on the border line of meditative non-action
that is purely spontaneous with no tendency whatsoever. Play is reaction purely to
tendencies. We see it in animal cubs playing. Each action is the pure expression of a
tendency without any constraint even to move from one kind of act to another. For
instance Tai Chi is a set performative pattern. It is composed of many different
kinds of moves. One learns the dance from beginning to end just in order to
experience the quality of the moves. The actions have no purpose apart from the joy
of their execution. But Tai Chi is a kind of action among others that one moves into
or out of and within it there are the discontinuities between separate actions. If one
concentrates purely on the movement between kinds of actions within Tai Chi or
between Tai Chi and other kinds of actions then one is at the level of Hyper Being
that emphasizes discontinuities between kinds of action or kinds of work. However,
if one begins to move oneself making up ones own sequences and moves then one
enters into Wild Being. In Malaysia there is a martial art called Silat where one does
not impose the form on the body but discovers which animal forms one naturally
are inclined to and one polishes ones actions to bring out those kinds of actions one
717
has natural inclinations toward. Learning Silat is not so much the imposition of an
external form of movement as a discovery of ones own natural forms of movements
which the master then helps you polish. The highest form of action is non-action. It
is the form of action that is described in the Tao Te Ching. It is an action that is
purely spontaneous and does not even express tendencies. It is action as if one were
moved from the outside like a hand moves a pen expressing the perfect unity of Chi
and Li. In non-action the difference between inside and outside vanish. Physus and
Logos are no longer dualistically split. When there are tendencies there is still the
surface between physus and logos were the tendencies exist. But at the level of
Wild Being nothing but the surface exists. When we move up to Hyper Being then
that surface is just a discontinuity between the realm of physus and logos. Both of
these realms are broken into quanta. The realm of physus is broken into particles
and the realm of logos or consciousness is broken into qualities -- what Pepper calls
strands of quality. When we move up again to the level of Process Being then we
see dasein ecstatically projecting the world. The overflowing of logos and physus
are part of that ecstatic projection. Performance is a dance for joy that expresses that
ecstasy. When we move up to the level of Pure Presence then all acts are inhabited
by purposes and we see production as the primary kind of action. This is the level at
which we do our work. But our work is supported by all these other layers of Being.
When we tap into these other layers of Being then the states or the quality of our
experience changes. When Jahn and Dunne talk about probability-of-experience
waves they are applying wave mechanics to experiences. Instead we need to talk
about determinants-of-experience, probabilities-of-experience, possibilities-of-
experience, propensities-of-experience and dependent coarising experiences (which
are empty). The different kinds of acts control these experiences. As Powell (?)
suggests actions control perception. Thus the interface between physus and logos
that define the potential wells of conscious within the body and the socius are really
controlled by our actions or non-actions in the environment. We only tap into non-
dual thought, perception and action if we meditate. Since meditation is non-
productive there has been until recently strict censure of meditative practices. We
only tap into the creativity and innovation possible from Wild Being if we are
playful. We only tap into the inherent differences of the qualities of experience if
we manage our crossing between experiences thought different kinds of work or
action we perform. We only tap into the flow of actions if we suspend our goals. We
only experience goals if we actively project them as the targets aimed at by actions.
Every action springs out of emptiness purely spontaneously. It immediately is
deflected by tendencies into particular kinds of action or work that yield particular
qualities of experience. Those kinds of work are hopped between to produce strands
718
or braids of qualities of experiences that form a seeming continuity from beginning

to end of segments of the act that add together to make up the whole act. That act is
seen in relation to the projected ideal act leading to the projected goal of action. But
we do not live in that illusory continuity. We live in the process sporadically and
erratically jumping between kinds of work so that statistically everything necessary
for the ideal act is accomplished. If in that jumping around between kinds of work
we take a playful approach to what we are doing then we have a chance to be
creative or innovative in our tasks. However, the whole act from beginning to end
remains empty at least in the minimal sense that goals once achieved have no
lasting value. In the end there is no difference between the purely spontaneous act
and the purposive action built up carefully from the many substrata of kinds of
action supported by the different meta-levels of Being.
When we recognize that what jumps between kinds of work (agency) is just as
empty as the kinds of work (functions) themselves, then we have realized the
necessity of Goertzel’s chaotic process model as we have come to double it
applying it both to the agency and the function simultaneously. Nothing remains
from moment to moment. Each moment is a new creation and has the possibility of
giving rise to an emergent event that will repattern the clearing-in-being at some
level (interpretation of Being, episteme, paradigm, theory or fact). All continuities
are suspect. But because of that we are taking nothing for granted. Each moment we
start from a clean slate following the lead of Hume who suspected all causes. But
we do not reject built up illusory continuities. Instead we explore the substrates of
discontinuities and pure tendencies that these apparent flows and ideal continuities
are built upon.
We recognize that within the clearing-of-being defined by the surface between

logos and physus there is on the side of logos no landmarks to measure
consciousness except very crudely. But there is to every state of consciousness a
quantum structure where qualities pervade it completely. We can describe these
qualities using various heuristics from traditional sciences such as the Chinese. If
we understand that the core of consciousness is a pervasive symmetry which is
completely unconscious and that we are only actually conscious when shards of
asymmetry break off from this central symmetry that connects the individual
unconscious to the collective unconscious. Then we see that the shards of
asymmetry within the desiring machine, autopoietic individual or socius each has
its own specific quality which over time, say within the specious present, forms a
strand as identified by Pepper. We can understand these qualities if we realize there
719
dependence on the central symmetry. In other words there is a progressive bisection

as the central symmetry fragments into finer and finer grained shards. This
progressive bisection follows the form 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128 etc. until some third
thing enters to engender chaos. So for instance just as Jahn and Dunne realize the
basic splitting is into Yin and Yang moments. The central unconscious symmetry is
Yang and all fragments or shards of consciousness with quantal quality are Yin.
When the next level of progressive bisection or symmetry breaking occurs there
appear what are called the four major qualities which are named major and minor
Yin and Yang. The central symmetry is identified with the major yang. Deflected
from that are four qualitative moments or qualia. These are minor yang which is
yang mixed with yin where yang predominates. Minor yin is the opposite of minor
yang. And then there is Major yin. Major yin relates to all phenomena that appear in
consciousness which are passive and acted on by consciousness. Minor yin might
be seen as those phenomena that arise in consciousness from the outside that are
active. Minor yang might be seen as those phenomena that arise in consciousness
from the inside that are somewhat passive. Here the core of consciousness that is
unconscious is seen as the epitome of activity. We think of this in terms of the
parallel processing of the mind/brain which we are unaware of from moment to
moment in our experience. This is pure activity but it is hidden from us. What
appears active in our consciousness is actually from the point of view of
consciousness itself passive. Sense perception is informed with order by its
processing by the concurrent mind/brain. Thus sensation is pure content that is
ordered by a hidden organizer in consciousness. The unconscious is incredibly
active organizing perception into a coherent whole. We have seen previously that
this occurs actually as a backward processing which is reversed when presented to
the conscious mind. Between the passivity of sensations and the activeness of the
unconscious there are partial combinations of activity and passivity. We might
follow Husserl and identify these with Noesis and Noema. No noesis or cognitive
activity in the mind no matter how rarefied goes without content of some kind. No
noema or thought content grasped is without some kind of action of consciousness.
And all of these noesis and noema have their own qualities as shards off of the
central symmetry as we move out toward total asymmetry. These different qualities
of the shards of consciousness are obtained by further progressive bisection first to
trigrams then quatragrams then quintagrams then hexagrams etc. The trigrams and
the hexagrams are explicitly defined by the Chinese as heuristic patterns. The
quatragrams correspond to the geomancy of the Arabs called Ilm al Raml. These
have become purely an oracular occult science and has lost its heuristic basis as a
way of describing qualities of dynamic opposites. However, by studying The
720
Meaning of Man1 it is possible to recover this lost philosophical basis for this
science of the sands. The qunitagrams are related to the five hsing or
transformations of Chinese medicine. It is this structure that our understanding of
autopoietic rings is based upon. It is a description of a hyper-cycle of essential
transformations. The hexagrams are described in the Chinese classic the I Ching.
All of these structures can be treated as rings or doubled operator groups. It is in this
way that the structure of groups enters the picture as being important for the
description of consciousness. Once the shards of qualia are formed within the well
of consciousness (which from the outside looks like a tree and thus through
inversion between logos and physus unifies the primal scene of the Indo-europeans)
then these different qualia have interactions based on the structuring of groups.
Change occurs when we move from one group structure to another through a series
of higher logical types which have different group structures with the same number
of elements. These series of higher logical types can themselves can form hyper-
cyclical rings and thus give rise to autopoietic ring structures which organize the
autopoietic networks of desiring machines, individuals or sub-groups. The science
of probability-of-experience waves that has been inaugurated by Jahn and Dunne
needs to graduate to developing this qualitative dual of quantum mechanics of the
physus within the realm of logos. We need to realize that we will not have a science
of process that has any rigor until we give up external statistical measurement of
non-routine work and adopt qualitative measurement methods of qualia instead.
The achievement of autopoietic harmony on a team is experienced as a quality
which cannot ever be measured by any objective observer. Only the participant
observer tuned into this quality of social interaction can detect its occurrence. We
need to look at work as the teams doing the work do from the inside as an
experience based on and conditioned by their own action together in a complex
dance around the dancing ground of the autopoietic ring of essential kinds of work.
Unless we participate in the dance we will never experience it and autopoietic
sociology will never be born out of the different distancing methodologies prevalent
in the social sciences. Only Heuristic Research can give us access to it through our
complete immersion in the process of group dynamics and engagement in mutually
conditioned work.
Notice that assuming that consciousness fragments internally into qualia via
progressive bisection and not limiting consciousness to the individual but allowing
it to be seen as manifestation within the desiring machine or in the socius produces
1.Sidi Ali al-Jamal (Diwan Press)
721
a way for us to understand the emergence of the autopoietic rings and the dynamic
transformation of those rings. We have said in an earlier part that the autopoietic
ring has the form of the pentahedron in four dimensional space. This pentahedron is
equivalent to the fifth level of progressive bisection where the Five Hsing appear.
At this level there are thirty two qualia which are articulated between pure yang of
the symmetrical center and the pure yin of sensation. At the next level of
differentiation the sextahedron of five dimensional space arises as the dynamic
transformations of the pentahedron. This level we have identified as inherently
social and we see that it is identified with the I Ching that has 64 qualia. These
qualia also range between the pure yang or the central symmetry of the active
unconscious out to the pure yin of sensation. This level of differentiation of qualia
within the formlessness of consciousness is more closely associated with the socius
than the last level of 32 qualia which is more associated with the autopoietic system
of the individual. We can speculate that the level of sixteen qualia may be more
associated with the level of desiring machines. Higher levels than sixty four may be
associated with higher levels within the fractal differentiation of the socius working
up to the level of the planetary Mann. Differentiation occurs progressively until a
third thing appears to cause chaos to arise. We notice that in bifurcation maps of
chaotic attractors that chaos will occur and then clear and then progressive bisection
will start over again. Thus progressive bisection takes place in an environment
surrounded by phases of chaos. Thus there is a dialectical alteration between chaos
and progressive bisection. Our chaotic social process model covers the ground state
of chaos. What we are now positing is that within that chaos there appear clearings
where the relation between physus and logos becomes clear and within which
consciousness begins to progressively bifurcate. The progressive bifurcation is a
dynamic play of jumping between qualia within consciousness. This jumping
between qualia is the dual of the quantum mechanical model that governs the
physus at the micro level. It is the quantum quality state changes of consciousness
that is rendered accessible by various heuristics that allow the differentiation of the
clearing-of-being between the central symmetry of consciousness s and the
periphery which appears as myriad flowing sensations. The bifurcation of qualia
allow us to assign value to these sensations as they form strands within the specious
present of consciousness. It allows us to understand their workings according to
group operations within an arena of closure. This means it allows us to understand
the clearing-of-being as dissipative (level 16) then autopoietic dissipative (level 32)
then finally reflexive autopoietic dissipative (level 64) system.
In this scenario we can say that there is an alternation between the dual chaotic
722
social process model which represent the regime of chaos and the progressive
bifurcation within the clearing-of-being. The self-generative system produces the
regime of chaos for however many moments of the specious present that the chaos
lasts. Then the self-generative system as a fundamental model of the purposive act
achieves quiescence. At the point of quiescence the chaos clears and the basic
distinction between physus and logos that defines the reality interface between
consciousness and the world is re-asserted. The center of this clearing-in-being is
the symmetry point of the active parallel distributed processing of the unconscious.
The periphery is the interface of reality between physus and logos. This is the point
where information is passed back and forth between consciousness and the
designated as real practico-inert world. The center of the practico-inert is the
essence of manifestation. The symmetry point is the Catalyst viewpoint. These are
the opposite poles of manifestation that we can associate with the positive fourfold
(Heaven, Earth, Immortals and Mortals) of Heidegger and the negative fourfold
(Night, Covering, Chaos and The Abyss) of Aristophanes1. The distinction between
the realm of logos and the realm of physus is not clear and there is the anomalous
areas that emerge where the two are mixed with one or the other being dominant.
Immediately the clearing-in-being begins to fragment generating more and more
complex heuristics by progressive bisection through symmetry breaking. This
creates shorter and shorter waves of qualia that are shards of asymmetry within the
formlessness of consciousness. We can identify the symmetry point with the
intentional morphe of Husserl and the surface of the sphere of consciousness with
the hyle that is formed by the intentional morphe into forms. At the second phase of
progressive bisection the combinations of morphe and hyle are produced called
Noesis (yang minor) and Noema (yin minor). These form the major cycle of
opposites rolling over into each other that occurs within the clearing-of-being.
When Chaos again occurs with the advent of the third thing two additional out of
balance states may arise called Yang Splendor and Closed Yin. These represent
blockage in the normal rolling over of opposites. They are points where the rolling
over of opposites are arrested. If yang and yin major represent one dimension and
noesis (yang minor) and noema (yang major) represent a second dimension then
yang splendor and closed yin represent a third dimension within which the sphere of
consciousness appears around the symmetry point. Jahn and Dunne speak of an
emotional axis that lifts us out of the cognitive plain via three coordinates range2,
attitude3 and orientation4. Instead we would speak of the distance form the
1.See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void manuscript of the author.
2.“r: the radial component, indicates the range, or depth of penetration of the consciousness into its environment -- the extent of its
attention to it, or of its interaction with it.” page 245
723
symmetry point of pure yang to the sensation as the measure of the constriction or
the expansion of consciousness. At right angles to this is the spectrum of the
mixture of yin and yang at a particular heuristic level in the progressive bisection
which produces the cognitive plane at a certain level of qualitative differentiation.
Within the cognitive plane the opposites will normally rollover through group
operations as the different qualia are transformed into other qualia via interactions
based on group operations. At right angles to the cognitive plane is the plane of
distortion due to the blockages in normal rolling over of opposites. Pepper makes
blockages of impulses and actions a major category within his qualitative system as
well. We will understand these distortions in the terms that Chinese medicine does
which we can see is the generation and dialectical interaction of nihilistic opposites.
These nihilistic opposites appear as the action of the third thing that produces chaos
on the plane of normal mixture and transformation of yin and yang. The turmoil
associated with nihilistic involvement might be seen as having an emotional aspect
which would allow us to relate the two coordinate systems. However, our
coordinates are tied directly to the differentiation of the clearing-in-being itself
rather than to hypothetical cognitive factors.
The environmental cavity that houses the consciousness waves and determines their
particular standing wave patterns must be represented in terms of these “soft”
coordinates. For computational convenience, we assume that its provide depend
only on the magnitude of r (range vector) and not on either of the angular
coordinates. More generally forms could be accommodated with greater
mathematical encumbrance, but little would be added to the basic
conceptualization.
We can proceed from this point to derive mathematical expressions for the hierarchy
of complex standing wave patterns allowed in any given confinement geometry.
Like their physical counterparts, these patterns are indexed by three quantum
numbers that serve on the mathematical side to specify the radial and angular nodal
configurations of the standing waves, and on the conceptual aide to quantify the
probability-of-experience options. The principle quantum number, n, specifies the
radial nodal structure and i the physical context is associated with sequence of
possible discrete energy levels of the atom. For our purposes, we interpret n as an
indeed of similarly discrete options for the degree of investment, involvement, or
attention of the consciousness, in either of the cognitive or the emotional sense, or
both. As such, this property bears some similarity to various stratifications proposed
in psychological, sociological, theological, and metaphysical models -- “affect,”
“attentional energy,” “libidinal energy,” “psychic energy,” “rank,” “hierarchy,”
3.“theta: the angle of inclination of the range vector, r, to the polar axis defines the attitude of consciousness and thus specifies the
emotional component of the interaction.” page 246
4.“omega: the angle specifying orientation of the component of the r (range vector) in the cognitive plane defines the cognitive ori-
entation, point of view, or strategic perspective of consciousness.”
724
“sanctity” -- where in each case there is some attempt to quantize this ellusive
dimension. For example, several mystical traditions identify a hierarchy of energy
centers, or “chakras,” that underly an individual’s motivations or actions, or a
sequence of degrees of enlightenment or spiritual growth. Various psychological
theories suggest sequential stages of cognitive, emotional, or moral development, or
hierarchies of psychological needs that progress from basic survival and primitive
egocentric gratification toward more social concerns, ultimately reaching altruistic
domains dominated by spiritual and religious values. Freud proposes a sequence of
stages of ego development; Jung explores beyond the ego to deal successively with
individual, group, and collective interactions requiring progressively more
involvement; Maslow defines a hierarchy of personal psychological needs; Erikson
identifies stages of emotional development; Piaget sets a scale of cognitive
achievement; and Kohlberg similarly scales moral development. In social contexts,
as well, we are accustomed to the establishment of discrete rands -- in the military,
in business and industry, in government, in religious and fraternal organizations and
cults, in academia -- that attempt to label in some crude way the nominal level of
investment or achievement of the individual in the given environment. Without
claiming any unification of these disparate stratifications, the quantum atomic
metaphor provides a symbolic representation of the common human tendency to
quantize degrees of conscious or unconscious commitment or cognizance.
Whatever their psychological implications, these consciousness “energy” levels are
subject to quantized change by mechanisms analogous to those of their physical
counterparts, for example, by absorption or emission of information radiated from
or to the environment, or by inelastic collision with other such consciousness atoms.
Also in analogy to physical atomic structures we may presume that beyond a certain
level of consciousness energy, the wave pattern can no longer be contained by its
environmental well and escapes to free-wave status.
The quantum numbers l and m specify the nodal configurations in the azimuthal and
polar directions, respectively In physical applications, these are associated with the
total angular momentum of the atomic system and the polar component thereof.
(Note that such associations of gross mechanical properties with atomic scale
probability patterns are themselves heavily metaphorical, since the wave-
mechanical model entails no moving particles.) In the consciousness metaphor,
however, these quantum numbers relate to the arrangement of the probability-of-
experience patterns in the cognitive-emotional space defined by our spherical
coordinate system. Since probability patterns having large m remain close to the
cognitive plane, while patterns of relatively small m are predominantly localized
along the polar or emotional, axis, we conclude that the ration of m to l is indicative
of the relative amounts of cognition and emotion prevailing in a given experiential
interaction.
These metaphors can also accommodate the degree of complexity of the
consciousness experience. For mathematical reasons, the angular quantum numbers
l and m are constrained by the principle quantum number n to the following options:
l = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , (n -1)
725
m = 0, +/- 1, +/- 2, . . . , +/- l.

Since l and m determine the number of angular nodes in the patterns, the more
complex configurations can only be generated for the higher n’s. Thus the analogy
predicts that the more complex experiences of consciousness can only be attained
with higher investments of consciousness energy. Again the relative extent to which
these complexities appear in the cognitive or emotional dimensions depends on the
ratio of m to l.
One detail remains to complete this metaphorical consciousness atom -- the
property corresponding to the electron spin, s, mentioned earlier. In physical atomic
systems this quantity does not contribute directly to the individual electron standing
wave patterns., but manifests importantly in their interactions. Given its binary
nature, its ubiquitous association with all atomic scale systems, and its central role
in the definition and application of the exclusion principle, we propose to associate
this spin property in the consciousness metaphor with the fundamental “feminine/
masculine” dichotomy, or the so called “yin/yang” distinction of Taoist philosophy.
More specifically, we shall use its two options to distinguish the passive/active,
receptive/assertive, or enveloping/penetrating modes of consciousness interactions,
whose balance is critical in interpersonal bonds.
Our consciousness atom has so far involved only a single “electron” in the
individual environmental well. Extending the metaphor into “polyelectronic”
structures would be tantamount to subdivision of the consciousness into identifiable
components capable of interaction with one another, as well as with other
consciousness systems. This multiplicity could prove useful for representation of
many more complex features of consciousness activity, such as the ability of some
individuals to segregate their patterns of attention and behavior into different
sectors, or simultaneously maintain multiple relationships with other consciousness
on quite different bases. However, given the greater mathematical encumbrance of
such models, we shall not pursue such polyelectronic formalisms here.
In summary, then, we have posed a quantum wave-mechanical model of the
rudimentary consciousness atom, consisting of an array of spherical standing waves
representing probability-of-experience patterns in a space defined by the intensity,
attitude, and orientation of the consciousness in its interaction with its personal
environment. The extent and configuration of these consciousness experience
patterns are quantized, and are indexed in terms of degree of involvement or
attention, the complexity and balance of the emotional and cognitive components,
and the assertiveness or receptiveness of the consciousness in the prevailing
situation. With this model in hand, we can now explore specific classes of
interaction.1
This model has many flaws when applied to consciousness. We have already
exchanged the coordinate system for one based on the symmetry breaking in the
1.Margins of Reality pages 247-252
726
clearing-of-being. The next point is that the hierarchical organization of

consciousness itself into levels has no firm basis in any kind of objective criteria for
differentiating levels. Many different levels have been proposed as Jahn and Dunne
suggest. However, the chakra system of the Hindus seems to be the best of these
based on number of centuries in active use. The chakras are nodes within the core of
the Aura. We have already seen that leaking consciousness outside the potential
wells may be seen as the basis for the aura. It would make sense for us to adopt a
similar view of the chakras as the basis for differentiation levels of consciousness.
There are seven chakras and we have already mentioned the connection of these
with the seven stages by which we constituted general systems theory and then
advanced it into the specialized dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems
theories. Thus if we relate the chakras to these stages we see that instead of seeing
the chakras as something that merely exists in the individual consciousness it is
actually a picture of the levels by which the fractal pattern of potential wells
defining desiring machines, the autopoietic system and the socius and beyond are
built up. Each of these levels has their own standing wave patterns and each of these
overflow into the next highest so that increasing levels of energy move us from one
fountain basin of consciousness into the next highest. We will note that the first four
stages are our way of reconstituting the clearing-of-being itself while the last three
move us up from desiring machine through the individual to the socius. Likewise
the highest chakra is hovers over the head of the body of the individual and is thus
“beyond” the individual in some sense. This would mean that the lowest four
chakras represent the movement through the phases of firsts, seconds, thirds, and
fourths to the creation of the basis of embodiment of the general system. It is the top
three chakras in the neck, head and beyond the head that produce the lower levels of
the fractal potential wells.
If we accept that there are some energy levels by which the envelope of
consciousness and the fractal structure of that envelope is produced then we see that
it is not necessary to make these directly isomorphic with the energy levels of the
atom. We would expect the structure of that energy pattern in consciousness to be
different. The key point is that Jahn and Dunne use the metaphor of the atom with a
single electron to show that very complex patterns of the electron cloud are
possible. For us the important point here is that the individual electron that is
forming this cloud can be seen as not moving at all. Instead we can invoke the
model of the instantaton which is an elaboration of the soliton traveling not in a
channel but around a potential well. An instantaton pops in and out of existence at
various points. We posit that this is what the electron is doing. It is not moving
727
around its cloud but chaotically popping in and out of existence within the
constraints of its cloud. When it is not visible it is in a “potential” state out of which
it is actualized at one point in spacetime and then it vanishes to appear at another
point in spacetime to create its cloud. The crucial question is how an electron can
travel forever around its nucleus. This is possible because it is an instantaton
moving through a channel which is sometimes in potential and sometimes in
actualization. That channel is warped into the shape of the electron cloud by the
configuration of spacetime within the atom. Thus the electron never loses energy as
it forms the cloud. It does not really move but merely instantaneously pops from
place to place within its cloud. This same principle operates in consciousness. The
standing waves like the clouds of the electron do not move unless there is some
change in energy. The moments of the qualia that make up these standing waves do
not move either. They merely pop in and out of existence in such a way that the
cloud is created. Thus consciousness is seen as a convoluted channel around which
solitons as instantatons move continuously never losing energy. Consciousness is a
warpage in manifestation where trapped energy moves without being effected by
entropy. This warpage has the structure of the dissipative system which turns in on
itself to become the autopoietic dissipative system which turns in on itself again to
become the reflexive autopoietic dissipative system. We do not need isomorphism
with the atom to produce an interesting model of consciousness. Instead we need to
recognize how consciousness as macro-quantum mechanical system based on
quality not quantity can be the dual of the physical atom. Logos is the dual of
physus not isomorphic with it.
Another point that is worth making is that we have the Schroniger equation for
Hydrogen but we do not have even the very next most complex equation for
Helium. Thus we cannot use such a model to give exact quantitative calculations of
interactions within consciousness even if we could accept the isomorphism between
consciousness and the atom. However, what Jahn and Dunne call polyelectronic
systems would correspond for us to autopoietic networks of desiring machines or
organizations of individuals within the socius. Thus the model is suggestive in the
sense that we know something empirically about the interactions of electrons and
how electrons form valences as we add them to the atom. Each atom adds one
electron and one positron and articulates itself into a series of electron shells. These
additions of electrons produce elements that have different basic qualities that
differentiate the basic kinds of matter. Thus the addition of electrons produce
differences in quality as well as quantity. Likewise we can expect that the addition
of desiring machines within the individual and of individuals within the socius
728
should change the qualities of those emergent levels of reality within consciousness.
So our qualitative analysis of consciousness could be taken to another level in
which we attempt to explore those interactions of qualitative strands. Notice that
Pepper talks about the category of fusion of strands that do not have any counterpart
on the conceptual side. Fusion of strands of qualities produce new qualities that can
be recognized in consciousness. Changes in individuals and desiring machines in
their respective networks will qualitatively alter the networks which have been
modified.
The next phase of progressive bisection or symmetry breaking produces the

trigrams that occur in Chinese philosophy. We can understand the Trigrams also
from the point of view of Sidi Ali al-Jamal’s The Meaning of Man where he
identifies three sets of opposites inward/outward, sensory/meaning and celestial/
terrestrial. These are permutated to give the eight trigrams. This model gives us a
completely different picture of the clearing-in-being. It distinguishes between the
inward and outward of whatever systemic reference we wish to name. It then says
that there are two higher dimensional axes that need to be taken into account. The
first one is the axis of meaning that arises from the void to inform what is sensory
within the clearing-in-being. The second one is the axis of the Heavens in relation
to the earth. Unseen causes occur in the heavens which move everything identified
as earth. The atom of consciousness is a geode that is empty at its center. Due to the
emptiness at its center meanings can upwell from the void. The atom of
consciousness is also seen to interpenetrate with all other things. The heavens is the
realm through which that interpenetration occurs. Unseen causes emanate from the
heavens as pure yang and effect the things within consciousness. The five Hsing are
examples of such unseen causes. What is interesting is that the emptiness at the
center of the geode of consciousness is the Same as the interpenetration of all things
because as the Buddhists say, “emptiness equals dependent co-arising.” Thus these
two avenues of effect from “beyond” are really the same in some sense. When we
look at the third basis we see that the inward/outward distinction is also merely
another analogy for the unseen realm because the inward IS the outward and the
outward IS the inward. Everything within consciousness is the all of the
outwardness (i.e., all outward things appear in consciousness in some form to
another). The outward contains the whole of consciousness (i.e., all
consciousnesses are contained in physical bodies within the universe). It is
undecidable whether everything is within consciousness or whether consciousness
is within everything. This undecidability is another image of the emptiness that is
the interpenetration of everything. It differentiates into emptiness which further
729
differentiates dependent co-arising. So this new level of differentiation of the

clearing-of-being acquaints us with the fact that we cannot really pin down
consciousness because it permeates everything and is permeated by everything and
we cannot really separate things out. This is why we call it formless. The eight
trigrams give us a perspective on the relation of the atom of consciousness --
clearing-of-being -- with everything else based on the Buddhist insights into the
nature of reality.
The next level in the progressive bisection merely adds one extra pair of opposites
to those indicated by Sidi Ali al-Jamal called basic and metaphorical. What is basic
is really true. What is metaphorical seems true but is not. Thus we get here an
interaction with reality which effects how we see the relation of the self with
everything else. This generates now 16 qualia that operate as described by the
heuristic forms contained in Ilm al Raml. The philosophical significance of these
sixteen via the bisection by which these qualia are produced are outlined by Sidi Ali
al-Jamal. These operate at the level of desiring machines or dissipative systems.
The dissipative systems define inside and outside. A boundary is set up where a
negative entropy flow is produced. This is the same as saying that order appears out
of nowhere. That nowhere is either the emptiness inside the system or through the
interpenetration of all things with all other things. The distinction between inward/
outward are basically the means of rendering these two the Same in their belonging
together. At that boundary there is a bifurcation between appearance and the real
that is produced as a side effect of closure. It is at that boundary the Escher waterfall
appears where order from nowhere enters the system organizing it as it disorganizes
the environment. That illusion of closure is the basis feature of the dissipative or
openly/closed system. The sixteen qualia of Ilm al-Ramal are capable of folding
through each other like the complex numbers based on the group operations that
allow the square root of negative one to equal i so real numbers can become
complex and vice-versa. Desiring machines are all small instantatons of such
Escher waterfalls. They build up the boundary of the autopoietic system as a series
of such inversions. When two desiring machines mate we get an autopoietic system
that is cognitive/living and completely closed. The source of order from nowhere of
the one becomes the entropy sink of the other. Normally there are more than two
desiring machines in a network but the minimal number of desiring machines that
can make up an autopoietic dissipative system is two. We double the complex
numbers to get the quarternion numbers. This phase defines the structure that will
be preserved by the autopoietic system and destroyed by the reflexive autopoietic
system.
730
The next level of progressive bisection gives us thirty two qualia. These qualia
represent the action of the Five Hsing which is the autopoietic hypercycle from
Chinese medicine. It is composed of transformations called “earth, fire, water,
wood, metal” in a particular sequence. That sequence relates to the pentahedron in
four dimensional space. That pentahedron is two mobius strips intertwined. Those
mobius strips are like the Escher waterfalls. When two waterfalls work together
each being the source from which the energy of the others sink is recirculated then
we have a completely closed four dimensional system that can imitate a perpetual
motion machine. This perpetual motion machine can only be realized in three
dimensional space as solitons moving in a closed ring or channel. In our case one of
the mobius strips is the channel and the other is like the soliton wave. The two
together give us a closed self-organizing system which conserves its energy
completely. At this stage our atom of consciousness becomes a dissipative
autopoietic closed system which has thirty two qualia who operate together
according to the principles of ring theory with two yin/yang transformation
operations. But laid on to this is the set of five groups of order twenty that relate the
twenty interface planes mentioned in the last section in this series of essays. The
boundary between potential and actual is posited by the dissipative system through
the distinction between basic and metaphorical. The autopoietic system allows that
boundary to be crossed four dimensionally to bring possibilities into actuality
without it actually being penetrated. This is the level at which the Quarternions
appear as the doubling of the complex numbers. At this level the Clifford algebras
appear. This phase defines the homeostatic autopoietic system that preserves its
own structure.
The next phase of progressive bisection gives us the socius. It has 64 qualia that
operate together based on ring theory operations. But these 64 reduce to twenty
sources beyond inversion and mirroring. This level corresponds to the sextahedron
of five dimensional space that gives us the degrees of freedom for the
transformation of the pentahedron. We see its heuristic in the I Ching’s 64
hexagrams. These are the qualities that can appear in the socius. The socius is a
reflexive autopoietic dissipative system. It appears from the doubling of the
autopoietic system. When two autopoietic systems reflect each other they become
reflexive and thus social. We can see this in the mutual reflection of the minimal
social machines or in the mutual reflection of chaotic process models. At this level
the Caley algebras appear. This phase defines the heterodynamic ecstatic system
that creates revolutionary new structures.
731
The next phase of the progressive bisection would be the level of 128 qualia, then
256 and so on. Each level differentiates by a adding a power of two. These
additional levels refer to levels of standing waves above the Socius which are none
the less social in some aspect as more complex social configurations. These levels
can be of indefinite extent all the way up to the level of the Planetary Mann. What is
of interest here is that defining the levels like this we are using the natural
interpenetration of the Pascal triangle to encompass more and more levels of social
reality. Thus our model is based on the interpenetration of higher and higher
mathematical dimensions. Those dimensions are actually infinite even though there
is a practical limit of the number of levels between the raw socius and the Planetary
Mann. What this shows is that at some level the Planetary Mann interpenetrates
with all individuals being connected to all other individuals within our species. We
do not plan to trace those higher levels of interpenetration above the socius or
attempt to enumerate them. That would differ from society to society around the
world depending on the granularity of social organization. Each heuristic device
adds another conceptual pair of opposites by which the new finer differentiation of
qualia is made. But practically speaking before the progressive bisection gets too far
beyond the socius there enters the third thing which causes us to switch back to the
regime of chaos. The third thing appears as a yang splendor lightening bolt of Zeus
that appears against the dark clouds of the closed yin system. Closure is a result of
the play of nihilistic opposites.
11. The Dynamic of Consciousness
Now our model has become more complex. We have suggested that when chaos
clears that there is a regime of consciousness where a progressive bisection due to
the asymmetries of consciousness occurs prior to the re-production of chaos. These
asymmetries produce a qualitative differentiation of consciousness into states. Thus
there is an alternation within the world between regimes of chaos and regimes of
clearing within which progressive bisection occurs. This alteration reminds us of
the alteration between logos and physus or the clearing-of-being of consciousness
and the potential well which restrains consciousness from escape into the cosmic
consciousness of Brahman which the Hindus aspired to achieve through asceticism.
Through this notion we suddenly get a picture of a more complete model of the
operation of consciousness from moment to moment. Within the regime of chaos
the dual models of chaotic social processes prevail. Self-generating agents and
functions interact producing a cloud of possible agents and possible functions for
the next moment of swarming. Then suddenly there is a collapse of the infinite
732
variety of chaotic states into a single system state. This collapse into simplicity
occurs as a catastrophe of the collapse of variety production. We see in this the
traces of the essence of manifestation because the one selected state is fated. It is
not a random selection but a selection controlled by the unconscious be it individual
or collective. This single state begins to bifurcate through symmetry breaking
within the clearing-of-being. This produces the various qualitative quanta or qualia
that the system bounces around between. This bisection occurs an unforeseeable
number of times before the third thing enters the scene to produce another chaotic
regime. The third thing is equivalent to the Catalyst viewpoint. It creates an
explosion of variety catastrophe which is the opposite of the simplifying
catastrophe. At the point when the regime of chaos is created again the set of
possible states of the bifurcating system forms a grid over the chaotic region by
sorting chaotic states due to proximity to bifurcated states. The system states may
be seen as a set of additive waves so that the heuristics are produced by the
bifurcation that can be used as a guide in the jungle of chaos. In that jungle the
functions that were possibilities in the last regime of chaos now are actualized.
Likewise with the agents from the cloud of possible agents. No trace of the original
agents or functions from the last regime of chaos are found. The regimes of chaos
are like dense and opaque like the physus beyond consciousness. The regimes of
clearing in which bifurcation occur according to the Figenbaum constant appear as
the analogy realm of logos. In it order is apparent whereas within physus the order
is obscured. We note here that the opposition between the Catalyst viewpoint and
the essence of manifestation appear clearly in their positive and negative roles with
respect to the expression of intensity. The essence of manifestation de-intensifies
while the catalyst radically intensifies the situation by bringing back chaos. We can
see moments of actuality oscillating between these two possibilities. Through this
we can understand why the Western tradition would make the mistake of splitting
physus and logos as they appear to have some basis in the expression of
manifestation. We can also see how consciousness can be seen as both clear and
opaque at the same time. Within the clearing-of-being the progressive bisection of
qualia occurs. This produces a grid by which the chaotic states of the system are
referenced. Thus an order is produced which holds like an afterimage projected on
the Chaos and by which consciousness can deal with the chaos through the fuzzy
similarity between fuzzy states and the reference bifurcations that exist just prior to
advent of chaos again. When the Catalyst viewpoint hastens the occurrence of chaos
then agent and function split and begin another preparation for swarming. But no
functions nor agents survive the clearing accept by collusion with other agents or
functions in the projection and cancellation process. The agents and functions
733
interact and begin building up their potential agents and functions ready for the next
reduction into simplicity and the next advent of the third thing bringing chaos.
Notice the similarity of the progressive bisection to the functional hierarchy. Notice
the similarity of the jumping around between system states in the clearing and the
jumping around of the agent from function to function. Both are tree structures
activated by execution. In one case it is global execution of the system by actuating
certain states. In the other case it is the independent thread of control of the agent
activating functions. Notice also that the progressive bisection is an intrinsic
ordering whereas the ordering of functions and agents is merely projected on chaos.
Chaos becomes the hyle which is formed into a system by projecting form on a
chaotic matter. Agent and function become the two hands by which the Catalyst
viewpoint form this matter into something useful to the totalitarian system of
subjectivity. On the other hand the bifurcation of consciousness or the clearing into
states is an intrinsic ordering. It occurs through the production of small asymmetries
which turn into our experience of the world. Everything that is symmetrical is
hidden from view. For instance the tremendous underlying parallel computing
power that underlies consciousness is hidden in background through its inherent
symmetrically. What little does appear because it is not able to achieve symmetry.
The single non-dual state of the system that emerges from the cloud of chaos is a
single flaw in the symmetry of consciousness. What occurs in a regime of chaos is
that what was hidden from consciousness is made to appear. Thus what we see in
the alteration between logos and chaos are two views of the same thing which we
alternate between so quickly as to not notice the difference as we switch from the
darkness into the light and back like the flickering of a light bulb. We do not care if
this lighting is going on in the desiring machine, the individual or the socius.
Exactly the same model applies to all three. Instead we see that the quantal model
that was forced on us in order that we might understand Quantum phenomena has a
dual with respect to consciousness. These two models of consciousness and
physical realms alternate making visible the substrate of the essence of
manifestation and the Catalyst viewpoint which are the Same in their belonging
together. All this occurs in the dance of the complex chaotic attractor. Flashes of
order within chaos occur. We project order on the chaos and because of this we can
find our way in the chaos. But that order is not metric in the first instance. In the
first instance it is an order of bifurcated qualitative states between which the whole
system wanders. Later we go on to project the artificial order of general systems
theory as we move from first to third and then fourth on two prior to building up the
series of specialized systems theories which allow us to understand dissipation,
734
autopoiesis and reflexivity.

12. Presence
Now that we have a picture of the relation of consciousness to what is non-

conscious in our expanding model let us treat the question of presence. We will do
this by exploring the Buddhist theory of the five Skandas. These are divided
between rupas and Arupas or form and formlessness. There is one rupa of Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water. These are sometimes interpreted as attraction, repulsion,
intensity and movement. However, we do not accept the abstraction of these basic
underlying elements. For us these four traditional elements are receptivities in the
hyle which accepts the impression of form. That formed impression is built up in
stages. First there is sensation which is equivalent to Husserl’s hyle. Then we get
the synthetic appearance of objects as noematic nuclei. Next the will appears and
finally cognition itself that is much like the Intentional morphe of Husserl. These
five are the ring of basic characteristic of consciousness: forms, sensations,
noematic nuclei, will, cognition. The last four are formlessness. They form a ring or
wheel. The buddhists have different views as to whether they really exist or not.
Most agree that the skandas are just as empty as the self. Now we will interpret the
skandas as a theory of presence and place it within the context of our model. We
take the skandas from the Buddhists because they have 2500 years of meditations to
back up their claim which followed and extensive tradition of Hindu asceticism. We
have almost no comparable systematic exploration of the possibilities in
consciousness. We note that the five skandas are based on the traditional Indian
identification of the four traditional elements: earth, air, fire and water. These are
the same elements that appear in the Greek tradition. We notice also that cognition
is undifferentiated. We will borrow from the Chinese the concept of the five hsing
as a means of understanding the differentiation of consciousness. They used it as a
basis for understanding the luminous internal organs of the body. For them the
“mind” was distributed throughout the body. If you combine the Buddhist five
skandas and the five Hsing of the Chinese you get an interesting picture of a
hypercycle. What appears is the twenty (five hsing times four elements) which we
discussed in the second section of this paper as the twenty interaction surfaces. Each
unseen cause or faculty of the bodymind can be received by all four kinds of
receptivity at the border between logos and physus. Through the action the qualia of
the sensation are formed into noematic nuclei which in turn are discovered to have
essences in the sense that Husserl understands them. These concave instances of
strands of qualia are woven into concerts of sensation controlled by the noematic
735
nucleus that can be recognized directly as an essence or natural complex or kind. To

this object the will becomes attached, or we many say out of the tendencies in the
sensation an intention is produced. This is the site where the clinging and craving
which Buddhism addresses springs up.
When we think about presence in consciousness the first thing we ask is if there is
sensations. They can come from inside or outside our bodies. These sensation form
qualia that we can control through our action to produce perceptions. We recognize
patterns in these strands of qualities which we build into noematic nuclei or
coherences. It is through these coherences that we recognize essences (kinds,
natural complexes) and we also attach our will to them. It is almost as if will and
essence perception where to related phenomena at the same level. We go on to
cognize these essences or endpoints of focus of our will to power. In the Indo-
european tradition cognition is one thing. In the Chinese tradition cognition was
dispersed throughout the body and differentiated into further kinds of their own.
These further kinds are the five Hsing. The five Hsing combine with the four
elements to produce twenty basic kinds of interaction between mindbody and the
physus. Presence is this interaction between the logos and the physus. The twenty
interaction surfaces occur as one of the concrete manifestations of the autopoietic
ring in its simplest form as the five cell polytope of five dimensional space. Thus by
merely combining the insights of the Buddhists and the Chinese in a natural way we
generate the autopoietic ring in terms of its interaction surfaces. These are also the
twenty sources beyond mirroring and substitution that exist within the I Ching. It is
produced by combining the five fold ring of presence from the Buddhists with the
internal differentiation of celestial organs within the bodymind of the Chinese. It is
clear that cognition in the Buddhist paradigm is related to Yang causation in the
Chinese model. When you combine the five essential transformation with the four
basis receptivities of matter then you are talking about the twenty fundamental
interactions on the surface between physus and logos.
736
Figure 134:
space
functionality water
wood
autopoietic hypercycle
of immaterial causes
HSING--Transformations
Viewpoints on Dynamic Systems
fire metal
time agency
earth
catalyst
4*5=20
interactive Cognition
noesis
interfaces essence perception
intentional morphe
Will investment or
Four Forms grasping or
SKANDAS projection
earth cycle of presencing tendencies => intentions
air
fire Synthetic Objects
water noematic nuclei
receptivities primitive, object, system,
of the physus Sensation metasystem, domain, world
noemata qualia
grid is from heuristic models
hyle produced by progressive bisection
The interesting thing about this combined model is that it allows us to focus in on
the surface between physus and logos. The Chinese system does not split logos
from physus. Instead there is just the unitary Chi and Li. In this system of thought
there is an essential differentiation of the body into five celestial organs or
transformations. The difference between the receptivities in the physus and the
actions of cognition are not differentiated. In India the Indo-european system by
differentiating the physus from the logos identified the four elements within the
physus as opposed to the Arupas or formlessnesses of the realm of the logos. But
cognition as a unitary center of consciousness has the same place in the Buddhist
system as the celestial causes do in the Chinese system. Thus when we place these
two systems in juxtaposition we see that the twenty interactional surfaces or sources
naturally arise from combining the unitary with the dualistic ways of looking at
existence. Yet ordinarily this combination would not occur because the unitary
viewpoint would not see the receptivities in the physus because no physus exists for
it and the dualistic viewpoint does not see the fragmentation of cognition because
all fragmentation is projected into the duality between logos and physus. So strictly
speaking these twenty interaction surfaces or sources do not exist. They are
imaginal. If they exist nothing else does and if they do not exist then everything else
can exist. They have no Being of any kind. They are the receptacles that are empty
through which phenomena overflow out of the void. They are the seeds of the
737
alaya-vijnana. All creation defines them negatively and from them all creation
arises. They are the heart of the social because they arise in the collective
unconscious. The imagining of them is the ultimate communal project for from
them all emergent things emerge. This is to say that they are the deep structure of
the surface between logos and physus which becomes visible when the duality of
these two realms collapse. For a moment we see the image of the twenty source
forms beyond reversibility and inversion that are hidden at the core of the
hexagrams of the I Ching. They are the heart of the social matrix of possible qualia.
The non-existent source of existence and the existent source of non-existence.
Images that appear within the ocean. The point where the birds and the fishes are
unified.1
The nature of the samadhi, as well as its ability to reveal a truth normally hidden
from us, is indicated by the name, which is figurative and meant to indicate its
nature. It is said in the Avataminsaka Sutra and several other scriptures that when
the surface of the great ocean is completely still, unruffled by the wind, all things can
be revealed as images on its surface. One text says, “It is just as when the wind
blows, waves arise in the great ocean, but when the wind stops, the water becomes
clear and still, and there is not a single image which is not revealed on its surface.”
Another text says that the forms of the Ashras dwelling in the sky are all revealed in
its surface. It is a simile for this particular samadhi because when the activities of the
“normally” functioning mind are stilled, like the waves in the ocean, then all things
are revealed to the meditator in brilliant clarity. Since in order to perceive the
identity and interdependence of everything demands an extremely radical disruption
of the normal categorizing, conceptualizing, symbolizing mechanisms of the human
mind, obviously the sagara-mudra samadhi is understood to be an exceptionally
profound state of meditation. I have translated the Sanskrit name (hai-in san-mei, in
Chinese) as “the samadhi which is like the images in the ocean,” or “samadhi which
is like the impressions in the ocean,” in conformity with the simile. Mudra is
sometimes translated as “seal,” which is inaccurate in this context because of the
connotations it has in some Indian and Tibetan forms of Buddhism.
Thus the Hay-yen teaching derives, according to Fa-tsang, from the Buddha’s
samadhi. However, the samadhi also belongs to the Bodhisattva of advanced states
for his own activities, which are those of a Buddha, must grow out of his own vision,
in sagara-mudra samadhi, of a universe of identical things interpenetrating
infinitely. This is why the Hua-yen vision is not available to most of us, who rely for
information on sources of knowledge which Buddhism criticizes as erroneous and
conducive to anxiety and turmoil. If we wish to share the Hau-yen vision, we need
only cultivate the samadhi which is like the images of the ocean. That means to
become Buddha-like.2
1.See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void. Author’s manuscript.
2.page 74, Hau-Yen: The Jeweled Net of Indra, Francis Cook.
738
When we realize that the images in the sea are fishes we then realize that from their
point of view they see their reflection on the surface of the water and the images of
the birds as shadows beyond their reflection. So to the birds see their reflection in
the surface of the ocean from the air. They see through their reflections the shadows
of the fish below. Both the birds and the fish see the same thing from their own
viewpoints. What is a shadow for one is a reflection for the other. From this we
derive our understanding of the relation between the things of the physus and the
formless no-things of the logos. Both of them collapse into the surface when we go
beyond duality to non-duality were only Li and Chi are recognized.
What is fascinating is that the lattice of qualia that is produced by the symmetry
breaking within consciousness has a structure which isolates the twenty sources
beyond reflection and inversion. Reflection and inversion produces the shadows
and the reflections of either side on the surface of the ocean. But within the surface
itself there are sources of the upwelling phenomena that arise in existence. These
sources are the key to the possibility of the reflective autopoietic dissipative
systems unfolding into existence. They are nodes that only appear when we switch
back and forth between the unitary and the dualistic view of the qualitative structure
of the socius. We model them with the five groups of order twenty. Each group acts
as a higher level of logical typing that allows catastrophic change from one regime
of cancellation of opposites to another. The higher levels of logical typing form a
hypercyclic ring. Thus the five hsing are extended to become group structures that
interact as a hypercycle rather than as points which occur in the pentahedron of four
dimensional space. This more complex structure of interaction occurs at the center
of the sextahedron of five dimensional space. This is the minimum expression of
the core of the socius or the reflexive autopoietic dissipative system.
Having mentioned the five Skandas as the model for the cyclical dynamic of
presencing we can see that the causality from one cycle of the Skandas to the next is
karma as it operates in the wheel of birth and death (samsara). That causality occurs
through the perfuming of the alaya-vijnana or storehouse consciousness. Storehouse
consciousness is intersubjective and not merely subjective.
Now according to the Secret Teachings, what must be understood, seen, felt, is that
there does not exist any current which is my mind, and therefore it follows that there
is not a plurality of currents which are the minds of other individuals, but only a
single current which is Kunji namparshespa, the sum of all mental activity at work
without any congizable beginning. It is in this totality that what we call our mind is
immersed, our mind which we try so hard to separate and define. Furthermore, this
effort is useless. Whether we are aware of it or not, the thoughts, the desires, the
739
needs which we feel for life, our thirst for it -- nothing of all this is completely ours,
for all of it is collective, it is the flowing river of incalculable moments of
consciousness having its source in the impenetrable depths of eternity.
Here is found, in another form, the conception of the Alaya vijnana, a mixture of
“seeds,” themselves the fruit of acts, determining new acts by the effect of
“memories” as the Indians say, or, as expressed by the Tibetans, of “tendencies.”1
Seldom is it expressed so directly in Buddhist literature that the alaya-vijnana is a

model of the collective unconscious. That the tendencies of one moment are planted
in the preceeding moment and are see as seeds of action that fructify given the right
conditions in the next moment. These tendencies are the same ones that we
discovered through the work of Johannson which appear at the level of Wild Being.
They are the social matter out of which the world is made. And we find that there
are twenty basic kinds of such seeds. The relation of these kinds of seeds is similar
to the twenty amino acids in relation to the dna an rna complexes. The twenty
amino acids are the basic building blocks that molecules are built using the DNA
templates. DNA is a code with 64 words. It’s structure is similar to the I Ching since
43 = 26. These words describe through a code sequences of the twenty amino acids
that are used to build up molecules of different types. So within the DNA structure
there is the same possibility of twenty source forms that exist with the lattice of
qualia in consciousness. But these express themselves physically as the twenty
amino acids that are the building blocks of molecules used by the cell. Similarly the
twenty sources beyond mirroring and substitution give rise to a specific set of kinds
of tendencies that become the basis of all sociality. In our case these have been
isolated and studied by J. Miller in his book Living Systems. There he isolates
nineteen building blocks of all living systems. They are as follows:
1) Reproducer, the subsystem which is capable of giving rise to other systems
similar to the one it is in.
2) Boundary, the subsystems at the perimeter of a system that holds together the
components which make up the system, protects them from environmental stresses,
and excludes or permits entry to various sorts of matter-energy and information.
3) Ingestor, the subsystem which brings matter-energy across the system boundary
from the environment.
4) Distributor, the subsystem which carries inputs from outside the system or
outputs from its subsystems around the system to each component.
5) Converter, the subsystem which changes certain inputs to the system into forms
more useful for the special processes of that particular system.
1.Alexandra David-Neel Secret Oral Teachings page 72
740
6) Producer, the subsystem which forms stable associations that endure for
significant periods among matter-energy inputs to the system or outputs from its
converter, the materials synthesized being for growth, damage repair, or
replacement of components of the system, or for providing energy for moving or
constituting the system’s outputs of products or information makers to its
suprasystem.
7) Matter-energy storage, the subsystem which retains in the system, for different
periods of time, deposits of various sorts of matter-energy.
8) Extruder, the subsystem which transmits matter-energy out of the system in the
form of products or wastes.
9) Motor, the subsystem which moves the system or parts of it in relation to part or
all of its environment or moves components of its environment in relation to each
other.
10) Supporter, the subsystem which maintains the proper spatial relationships
among components of the system, so that they can interact without weighing each
other down or crowding each other.
11) Input transducer, the sensory subsystem which brings markers bearing
information into the system, changing them to other matter-energy forms suitable
for transmission within it.
12) Internal transducer, the sensory subsystem which receives, from subsystems or
components within the system, markers bearing information about significant
alterations in those subsystems or components, changing them to other matter-
energy forms of a sort which can be transmitted within it.
13) Channel and net, the subsystem composed of a single route in physical space, or
multiple interconnected routes, by which markers bearing information are
transmitted to all parts of the system.
14) Decoder, the subsystem which alters the code of the information input to it
through the input transducer or internal transducer into a “private” code that can be
used internally by the system.
15) Associator, the subsystem which carries out the first stage of the learning
process, forming enduring associations among items of information in the system.
16) Memory, the subsystem which carries out the second stage of the learning
process, storing various sorts of information in the system for different periods of
time.
17) Decider, the executive subsystem which receives information inputs from all
other subsystems and transmits to them information outputs that control the entire
system.
18) Encoder, the subsystem which alters the code of information input to it from
other information processing subsystems, from a “private” code which can be
interpreted by other systems in its environment.
741
19) Output transducer, the subsystem which puts out markers bearing information
from the system, changing markers within the system into other matter-energy
forms which can be transmitted over channels in the system’s environment. 1
Miller finds these nineteen functions on every emergent level where living systems
operate. We can understand them as approximations to the faces of the twenty kinds
of propensity. If we understand them this way the become more than just ones
man’s category scheme for the building blocks of life. Instead, we see that these are
expressions of fundamental propensities at the center of the social cognitive living
system. When we analyze this scheme of Miller’s we see that it can be put into the
matrix of the Hsing against the receptivities only if we combine the input and
outputs on the various levels together. This shows us that there were some
unaccounted for gaps in Millers categorization of subsystems. He seems to have
forgotten about transformations and computational functions, about structural
relations that are conserved within the system and about the nucleus of the system
that contains the internal self definition (DNA on the cell level). If we fill these gaps
then we get a complete picture of the subsystems as they inform the matrix of active
principles against receptivities that represent the fundamental kinds of propensities.
We can see each of these interfaces between the Yang and the Yin as proto-desiring
machines that turn propensities into actualities. Each living system approximates
them in some way because each living system is a nexus between an autopoietic
ring of essential transformations and the content that is worked by those
transformations. Each prototype desiring machine wants to do its part. Each is a
point of collision between the essential kinds of work in an autopoietic ring and the
social matter which is transformed into the substance of the living system.
1.Miller; Living Systems; page 3
742
Table 26:
Earth Metal Water Wood Fire

Hsing
Catalyst Autonomy Space Function Time
fire 16) 17) 15) (comput 14)

Memor Decider Associa e) Decoder
y tor
18)
Encoder
air (structur 12) 13) (transfo 11)
e) Internal Channel rmer) Input
Transdu and Net transduc
cer er
19)
Output
transduc
er
wate 7) 5) 4) 6) 3)
r matter- Convert Distribu Produce Ingestor
energy er tor r
storage 8)
Extrude
r
earth 10) (nucleus 9) 1) 2)
support ; Mover Reprod Bounda
er ucer ry
genetic
basis)
[self-
[self- moving] [self- [self-
support] reprodu definitio
[self- ction] n;
definitio external
n; ]
internal]
Notice that the lowest level has the traits of the autopoietic system. Based on these
traits then physical allopoietic production is constructed as a supplement to the
autopoietic system. The next level added to these is that of transduction of sensory
inputs and outputs. And the final level is the information processing level which
operates on the basis of the transduction. We notice that Miller’s description of the
subsystems when organized according to this scheme creates a clear hierarchy that
relates the meta-system of the fire level to the hardware of the water level via the
intermediary interface layer that supports transduction. All these allopoietic layers
are built upon an implicitly earth layer of autopoietic traits. Seen from this
743
perspective it is a very sophisticated model with a lot of assumptions built into the
differences between the subsystems.
One of the problems is that it treats humans as if they were information processors
which is the normal model of cognitive science. Buddhism has a different model. It
is expressed in the relation between mindfulness, concentration and insight. In
Buddhism meditation passes through these three phases. In mindfulness everything
that one does is made the subject of awareness. Then on the background of
mindfulness one concentrates very hard on one thing to the exclusion of everything
else. Out of the dialectic between these two processes appears insight. Insight is into
the nature of the self, i.e. the realization that it is empty. So from the perspective of
the Buddhists the human being is not an information processor but one who ceases
information processing by becoming mindful of everything one does including
information processing and then by concentration on one thing to the exclusion of
everything else. Out of this dialectic between the inclusion of everything in
awareness and the exclusion of everything except the focus of concentration comes
an insight into the nature of oneself and thus of consciousness, which is that
consciousness and the physus that surrounds it is intrinsically empty. If we extend
information processing from data, to information, to knowledge, to wisdom then
what Buddhism tells us is that our real data is null, our real information is empty,
our real knowledge is of nothing, and our real wisdom is of the void. The ultimate
aim of the human being is to cease information processing which is based on
cessation of thought. Human beings in their essential nature are not tied to
production but to non-production. It is in non-production that insight arises. One
can only have insights if one reflects which means stopping thought so that the
insight comes to you in a flash of inspiration from out of nowhere. Thus there must
be a level beyond the matrix of Hsing and elements which is formless and which
supports the development of mindfulness, concentration, and insight. It is this level,
the emptiness at the center of the living system which we must use to base our
understanding of the actual differentiation and articulation of the living system. It
must be the basis of our understanding of the unfolding of social processes. What
we have seen here is that within consciousness there is a symmetry breaking in
which a progressive bisection of qualia are produced. These lattices of qualia have
more and more complex structures. At the level of 26 the twenty sources beyond
mirroring and substitution appear. These appear as subtle kinds of tendency which
also manifest within the physus/consciousness boundary as the interaction of the
Hsing and the four elemental receptivities. From these arise the fundamental kinds
of desiring machines which are more or less those that Miller identified. These
744
appear as subsystems of higher and higher levels of living system beyond the
socius. These interactional interfaces only appear at the level of the socius. We
project them upward and downward in the emergent hierarchy from the point where
they first appear. Thus the interactional surfaces appear as sources and basic kinds
of desiring machines. We do not create our desiring machines from nothing and
there is no “god in the machine.” Instead just as with the DNA and Amino Acids the
potential structure within the DNA is converted into an actual physical surrogate
which is the means for unfolding the information within the DNA. Likewise the
sources are the points of entry from out of the void but what comes into existence
within an autopoietic system does so through the work of the different kinds of
proto-desiring machines which draw from the interactional surfaces. In this way
something that appears in potential within consciousness is actualized in physus as
an array of specific kinds of mechanisms. These build up the autopoietic system
into the allopoietic system on the physical level, then the transduction interface is
produced which allows a purely computational level to be defined. The essence of
this computational level is software and the turing machines that run that software.
We have already seen how minimal social machines can be defined that might
inhabit this computational infrastructure within the living system. But all of this
revolves around the emptiness at the center of the cognitive/living system which
manifests mindfulness, concentration, and insight. That cognitive living system is
also social. It is at the social threshold of complexity defined by the reflexive
autopoietic dissipative system that the interactional surfaces that indicate sources
and kinds of desiring machines appear.
This is why constructivism is the only way to really find out how things work.
Constructivism works with the relation of the fundamental kinds of potential which
are the basis for the fundamental kinds of desiring machines which appears right at
the surface between logos and physus and actually is embedded in that surface. This
is the point of arising of all emergent events. Constructivism attempts dwell on this
interface and be open to the arising of emergent events. Genuinely emergent events
cannot be forced to appear. However, by practicing constructivism one can dwell on
their possibility and thus be attuned to their arising when they do occur.
Constructivism must be inherently social because the arising of emergent events is
social at its core. The social structures that appear around the interface are
autopoietic and highly non-routine. They give us access to the socius and the
desiring machine levels of the field of consciousness. In the social structures of
teams oriented toward the point of epiphany of the emergent system there is a kind
of resonance set up so that the reflexive autopoietic system takes on the structure of
745
the emergent event. In this configuration innovation is enhanced and social relations
become very efficient between team members. It is these special social structures
which it is the charter of autopoietic sociology to study using combinations of
methods from social phenomenology (socialized consciousness) and computational
sociology (socialized physus).
13. Realization
As we explore the structure of consciousness we realize that a fundamental problem

which is little explored within the Western tradtion is the relation between quantity
and quaility. Our model taken from geometry using the sphere to represent the
domain of consicousness following Jahn and Dunne is based on the geometrical
interpretation of numbers inaugurated by the Greeks. This interpretation gives some
abstract qualitative understanding of numerical relationships. But geometry and
other numberical approaches generally do not allow us to deal with the myriad
qualities we perceive within consciousness. Now we can augment the simple model
of the sphere by realizing that it is actually multidimensional or by realizing that if
identity is its center and reality is its peripheri then truth must be its radius. As such
we see that the sphere actually represents the three implicit concepts within Being:
Identity, Truth and Reality. Once we have realized that we may ask what the nature
of the different combinations of these implicit concepts might be. This leads to the
understanding that the “sphere of consciousness” has many facets depending on
how you combine the implicit concepts. These facets give depth to the sphere of
consciousness and produce a model of manifestation in the Western Tradition.1 A
summary of this model will be given here for reference.
1.See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void for a development of these facets and an explanation of how they
function as a model of Western manifestation.
746
Figure 135: Binary relations between facets
Real Symbolic
Projected by ∃ Projected by truth functions
REAL UNREAL TRUE FALSE
Projected by copula
Real Unreal True False
IDENTITY Identity Identity Identity Identity
Imaginary
Real Unreal True False
DIFFERENCE Difference Difference Difference Difference
True False
Unreality Unreality
True False
Reality Reality
Figure 136: Three way relations between facets

HOLOID HARMONY
TRUE
IDENTICAL
REALITY Interpenetration
HOLON INTEGRA Mutual

TRUE TRUE
IDENTICAL DIFFERENT Support
UNREALITY UNREALITY
NOVUM EPOCH
TRUE FALSE
DIFFERENT IDENTICAL
Interaction
REALITY UNREALITY
ESSENCING EVENTITY Logical

FALSE FALSE
IDENTICAL DIFFERENT Connection
REALITY REALITY
EPHEMERON
FALSE Disharmony
DIFFERENT
UNREALITY
As is clear from the diagrams one gets different fields of relations if you combine
the implicit facets of Being in pairs or in sets of three. When we look at all the
possible purmutations of the three implicit concepts of Being we see that each
combination has a differnent quality which range from indentical true and real
through six intermediary concepts to false different and unreal. I have glossed each
of these combinations in order to protray its own quality. The sphere of
consciousness which is centered on identity and with a boundary with reality
contains thought which is made in terms of statements. When the statements are
747
identical with reality then they are designated as true. When truth, identity and
reality all impinge together rather than their opposites then consciousness is in the
highest possible state of grace which I follow George Leonard in calling the Holoid.
However when consciousness is projecting unreality, is infected by difference with
no center of symmetry and where only flasehoods abound then consciousness is in
a state of confusion that can be identified with the ephemeral nature of illusion
called the “ephermeron.” Each of the other stages exhibit some compromise
between the extremes of harmony and disharmony. We use Chang’s stages of
harmony to understand the differentiation between these extremes into levels.
Starting with the extreme of dissonance we can move up the levels of the
differentiation of the qualities of manifestation one level at a time. Each level has
two faces. At the second level the difference between individuation and kindness
appears as eventity / essencing. At the third level the difference between novelty
and continuity appears as novum / epoch. At the fourth level the difference between
the whole and the uniqueness of the individual appears as holon / integra. Finally
the top of the series of steps appears with the interpenetrated holoid of
consciousness. This model serves to underline the differentiation of consciousness
where we no longer see it as a geometrical homogeneous plenum. Rather we see it
as a differentiation of modes of manifestation on a continuum between identity and
differnece, truth and falsehood, AND reality and unreality. Seeing consciousness in
this way frees us from the naive assumptions of our geometrical model. It allows us
to see consciousness as the same as manifestation or Being -- no longer a container
for subjectivity but as phenomenology discovers it to be -- a multifaceded model of
what can manifest on all planes of existence within the Western worldview. Within
the combinations of the three different implicit concepts within Being there are the
twelve specific interaction between each of these concepts and their opposites.
These also form a field of differences which taken together gives an expanded view
of the possible interactions of the differnt aspects of the field of consciousness.
14. Processes Arising
Now from theory we will attempt to come back down to ground by talking about
how this impacts our understanding of processes. The main thing to understand is
that processes are not continuities. They are based on a model that allows
discontinuities and focuses on propensities. So we will redefine processes as
horizons of work. When we start work given a plan we immediately throw away the
plan and dive in. When we do this we discover a myriad of things never realized in
the planning phase. Work arises as we perform our tasks. A process is a horizon on
748
which work arises. So the processes allow us to orient ourselves to that arising
work.
As work arises we place that work in our action list. We can model the individual
worker through his action list. We assume that he is applying the basic steps of
rational work and that he is executing some part of the overall tree of kinds of work
by skipping either routinely or non-routinely between kinds of work. When he
actualizes a kind of work he uses the data inputs to that kind of work to generate
information that is context dependent. He applies his knowledge and experience.
Thus his relation to work is not distanced as we might assume if we saw him as an
information processor. Instead it is a full engagement that occurs as the person
applies all their knowledge learned in many different forums and their gnosis that is
based on the synthesis of knowledge and experience doing work. We might expect
that such a full engagement can be mindful as well. That is to say we expect that the
worker will not be sleep walking but paying attention to all aspects of what they are
doing. And we expect that within the field of mindfulness they are concentrating on
very specific physical and cognitive tasks. Out of the dynamism between
concentration, mindfulness, gnosis, knowledge, information processing, and data
processing there arises insight. It is on the basis of insight that one “gets the idea” of
what best should be done. At that point one may restructure the work entirely or
decided that something else should be done perhaps by a different person, or that
nothing should be done. Thus it is the interaction or full engagement of the person
working with his work that allows the fundamental restructuring of work that
causes discontinuities to appear. According to that insight maybe that person will
reconceptualize how the work should be done to the extent of producing an
innovation that causes all such work to be done differently in the future. Thus we
see that by understanding kinds of work as horizons instead of set instructions we
may see how what arises across that horizon may be an emergent event, or merely a
local innovation, or perhaps merely a restructuring or redirecting of effort. But the
concept of work as a horizon allow us to access the full range of options that our
chaotic social work process model makes available to us in conceptualizing the
flow of work. The plans need to be constantly re-done as we move through the work
based on what we discover. The Evolutionary Spiral Process of SPC allow us to
have a kind of lifecycle that will allow us to work in spurts and then consider what
we should do next at appropriate points along the way. The entire spiral of work is
parsed into cycles. Each cycle is composed of Assessment of the Situation, Risk
Assessment, Planning, Applying kinds of work, and Synthesis of work getting
ready for the next cycle within the spiral. This model allows us to understand work
749
as humans do it in spurts instead as an illusory continuity of effort that appears on

schedules. But what we add is a fundamental paradigm of the kinds of work
performed in the “working” sector of the cycle. In that sector the team member is
intuitively jumping between a set of kinds of work that are leaf nodes on the tree of
all kinds of work. The individual may be performing several such roles concurrently
in different spirals. Thus agency may be split up within the individual as well as the
kinds of work. At each moment he can dynamically re-structure his agency
commitment or re-structure the kinds of work he is doing. This re-structuring can be
radical so as to produce discontinuities in the stream of work. The most radical is to
stop a particularly thread of work completely and to start a completely unrelated
one in a different role. Form that there are gradations all the way back up to the
illusion of a continuous level of effort applied to some task. As the selected subset
of kinds of work being performed are done the individual is continuously
discovering new things to do which may get added to the action list of this
individual or be communicated to some one else. As a horizon each kind of work
sets bounds on what can be discovered in a particular realm. However, these limits
are only guidelines and are not fixed in any way. While doing one thing one may
realize that something completely unrelated needs to be done. But for the most part
one explores within the context of the kind of work being enacted at any one time.
As one explores one finds new things no one thought of that need to be done. This is
a process of manifestation. Production is manifestation through action. In Miller’s
schema production covers transformation and computation as well. But it is better
to separate these out and make it explicit which level of subsystems we are
operating on within the ring of essential kinds of work. Our normal model for work
is routine manual skilled or unskilled. Such work only discovers what needs to be
done within a restricted horizon. In engineering work the horizon for discovery of
what needs to be done is very wide. It is widest at the Systems engineering level but
is also still very wide at the software engineering level. This is what makes the work
non-routine. When you discover something new about the work you are doing it
makes you switch to some other kind of work to handle that real time or somehow
manage the appearance of new work. Management interrupts are mostly externally
generated whereas engineering work interrupts are mostly internally generated as
one has ideas of what else needs to be done in the course of doing the engineering
work itself.
Now when we realize that any really complex task must take a group of people
working together one sees that exactly the same thing occurs on the social level for
the team. The team through its members executes a set of kinds of work which are
750
all horizons for the discovery of new things which need to be done. As this new
work is processed more may be discovered. But in a team there is constant
communication about what is being done and what is discovered that needs to be
done that cannot be handled at just the level of the individual team member. So
these horizons exist within the individual that multi-tasks between roles, at the level
of the individual, and at the team level. As the project progresses usually the
discovery rate is overtaken by the production rate. However, there is always some
level of discovery associated with every kind of work throughout the project as long
as a particular kind of work is being done. This is the fundamental nature of kinds
of work which is not addressed by current forms of process definition and
enactment strategies. It is this basic aspect of kinds of work that needs to be taken
into account if our process definitions and enactments are going to be in line with
the actual dynamics of work as performed in current organizations. If it is not taken
into account then processes will be rejected because it will have the effect of
freezing practice within the organizations and stopping innovation and creativity. In
this scenario the processes will have the opposite result of that desired as they will
represent a work to rule mentality which refuses to recognize new work, refuses to
reconceptualize work, and refuses to grow and learn. Only if we take the chaotic
social work process model seriously will we avoid making this mistake. Work
processes are not continuous, but shot through with discontinuites and chuck full of
propensities that can be turned into opportunities if we can only recognize them by
thinking about what we are doing before, during, and after acting. The chaos of the
physus is the fog of war. That fog clears occasionally as the clearing-of-being
appears within it giving us a moment of consciousness within midst of the fog. Out
of this clearing comes the qualitative way of looking at process in terms of the flow
of Chi and the patterning of Li which forms a grid through which we can get a sense
of the quality of what we are doing. It has been said many times that quality of the
product comes out of the quality of the process. But how? Well that occurs because
the moment of the clearing-of-being occurs in the midst of the fog of war. Quality
comes out of this clearing and we can project it as a grid on the fog or cloud of
action. When we understand the quality of the fog of action based on this grid that
appears within the clearing then we are able to control that action to make it better
quality and that causes the products to have better quality as spin-offs of the
processes. Quality is something we can recognize in our consciousness which tells
us something about the flow of actions that impacts the results of those actions. We
cannot put quality directly into products because the quality they have is the imprint
of our consciousness on them. If we are conscientious in what we do it shows up in
the results we produce. If we are mindful as we do work then we turn it from being
751
a drudgery into being a craft and a skill of which we can be proud when we exhibit
mastery. Mastery is the key to understanding work. Mastery means that one has
organized oneself in such a way that ones performance is based on insight which
comes from concentration, mindfulness that resides at the empty center at the heart
of the vortex of action. It is Mastery of the processes as kinds of work that we
perform professionally that can only be gained if we understand the nature of our
work. Our work goes deep into the nature of manifestation within our worldview. It
embodies all the different kinds of presencing which have been discovered by
modern ontology. And when we work as teams as we increasingly must we end up
embodying the emergent event in the structure of our teams. The emergent event is
the deepest kind of change that can occur within our worldview and our work has
the continuous possibility of producing an emergent event. When we apply
ourselves within teams that “click,” spontaneously order themselves, and within
that team’s kinds of work an emergent event occurs then at that moment some level
of our worldview is changed forever. We have experienced the utter depth of
manifestation within our worldview. At that point the social organization and what
arises in manifestation to that social organization were in complete harmony. At
that moment cancellation of the worldview itself occurs momentarily. We all enter a
clearing in the chaotic fog of our worldview. And within that clearing-of-being that
cancels completely for an instant the deepest possibility of manifestation within our
worldview actualizes itself.
Such an event were the emergent event occurs to a socius organized as a reflexive
autopoietic dissipative system, where what manifests and what it manifests to are
both in harmony is the ultimate goal autopoietic sociology. Autopoietic sociology
uses this measure to understand all other social formations within our Indo-
european worldview. Because that advent of the emergent event to the
autopoietically organized socius is the actualization of the empty center of the
vortex of work within our worldview. It is the moment when everything goes
completely dark because one is stunned by the brightness of the light as nihilistic
opposites resolve themselves momentarily. Vernor Vinge has called this moment
the “technological singularity,” and the brothers McKenna1 call it the point of the
end of history. It is a moment out of time which defines all time. It is a way of
working that defines all work. It is a momentary ending which defines all
beginnings and all points along the way to our many disparate ends. It is the
ultimate object of autopoietic sociology that organizes all of our society. It is the
1.See The Invisible Landscape
752
opposite of the always lost origin of Derrida and Heidegger. It is the difficult to find
social origin that is always embodied and organizes all embodiment as the process
of projecting our world in manifestation. Everything is organized around this
possibility which we have a propensity to bring into existence and which is fated for
us as a wild point fluctuation within the probabilities that we actualize.
15. Conclusion
This series of papers has presented a lot of wild ideas. That was its object because
we can only experience the full depths of manifestation within our worldview by
entering the realm of Wild Being and attempting to abide there momentarily in
repeated elliptical passes and valiant attempts. The ideas presented here are highly
speculative and necessarily so because we can only enter this savage territory of
thought by groundless speculation. But just because something is the result of
speculation and other flights of fantasy does not mean they are not worthy of our
consideration. We follow Feyerabend’s dictum “anything goes.” So we have sought
widely in Chinese philosophy and Buddhism what we need to build a theory of
reflexive autopoietic dissipative systems. That is to say a radical theory of the social
as the focus of the manifestation of the emergent event. We have looked closely at
work (the ultimate locus of presencing within out worldview) and attempted to
come up with a new model of work process that is inherently social and is not
continuous but based on chaos. This has led us to formulate new kinds of sociology
as a sociology of the emergent. We have formulated autopoietic sociology as the
interface between social phenomenology and computational sociology. We have
done our best to produce a new perspective on sociology by orienting it toward
gnosis (experience + knowledge = wisdom) beyond the sociology of knowledge.
All this we have done in order that we can understand better the relation between
the socius, the individual and the desiring machines that protrude form the
unconscious and that make up the individual. The social construction of emergent
worlds rests on deep ontological foundations which have been explored. These
foundations are explored further in the authors book: The Fragmentation of Being
and the Path Beyond the Void where the underpinnings of the Western worldview
are made manifest. For if we are really going to understand the social construction
of emergent worlds we need to understand the roots of the autopoietic view of
social organization and its intimate relation to manifestation. When we build virtual
realities as places to do work then we will need all the resources we can muster of
every type to understand that bizarre landscape that is constantly changing and
getting out of control. This series of papers has been a first attempt to gather those
753
resources from where ever we might find them and proceed by constructivism to
throw together a viable socially constructed emergent world within which to try out
these fragments of ideas.
That world exists for me in the philosophy and autopoiesis email lists I have
founded on the internet. There are universes of discourse some of which take off
around which people gather from across the planet to participate in thoughtful
conversation. The work that appears in these papers have been nurtured in this
virtual environment of the thinknet lists. Many of the ideas have been explored
there first. The on-line world net is an emergent event of the first order and if we
can get self organizing communities of discourse to form there then the conditions
of the event of autopoietic sociology might be fulfilled. It is an intellectual
adventure of the first order and we can all be a part of it as we participate in the
social construction of emergent worlds together1.
1.To join send a message to thinknet@world.std.com.
754
all kinds
of work
Voting major major major

cascade kind kind kind
sub-kinds of work
decomposed into kinds

of work which abstracts
nodes of chaotic attractor
sub2-kinds of work
functionality
non-routine jumping between leaf nodes
sub3-kinds of work
Agent4 Complex
Agent3 Chaotic
Agent2 Attractor
Agent1 agency
actual
agents
group group for next
of agents of agents projection moment
of new
agents
and voting
on them
potential
agents
All agents
cancellation
755
voting process
physus logos grid
physus
CHAOS CLEARING CHAOS
grid
catalyst
Cloud of third thing Cloud of
possible Functions explosion of variety catastrophe possible Functions
Function Function
756
Sub information Sub Sub information Sub
4 8 16
2 Agent
Agent 1
Cloud of
possible Agents Cloud of
possible Agents
simplicity
grid
essence of manifestation
collapse of variety catastrophe
Jumping around between
system states
PLAN Current Situation
Work Breakdown Structure What individual or team can relate
to is day to day action lists
SCHEDULE
action item
WORK PROCESSES
Prioritized Action List

action item
o generic kinds of work
action item o places to dig
o do not replace judgement

responsibility
action item o curtails unnecessary variety
due date
effort
o information flows not artifacts
resources action item o guidelines only
757
action item info
WBS #
action item
sub-process
predicted work unpredicted work PROCESS
BUGETED ACTIVITY DISCOVERY sub-process
significant significant
o what was bid HORIZONS
input
o freeform output
o consensus sub-process
artifacts o contains work artifacts
process pointer info
758
Steps to the Threshold of the Social

Part 1: The Mathematical Analogies to Dissipative,
Autopoietic, and Reflexive Systems.

PO Box 1632
Orangee, CA 92856 USA
palmer@exo.com

1. Abstract
In this paper it has been explained how general systems theory is extended to cover
three special systems theories which approximate the dissipative, autopoietic and
reflexive systems through their analogy with the complex, quaternion, and octave
number systems and their algebras. This presents a new paradigm for which
rethinks General Systems Theory in terms of specialized systems theories involving
order production, life, intelligence, and society. It discovers that there are specific
thresholds of complexity at which these different systems arise unfolding from each
other which have analogues in the mathematical theory of algebras. Each of these
thresholds of complexity are steps from General Systems Theory toward the
definition of the social. This new paradigm gives a mathematical basis to the
definition of living systems and social systems for the first time. It allows us to
create a genuine extension of autopoietic theory into the realm of the social and thus
resolves one of the problems of autopoietic theory (i.e. how it applies to the social
phenomenal emergent level). It also allows us understand the relation of
autopoietic systems to their underlying dissipative systems.
In the course of the paper the disciplines of Social Phenomenology, Computational

Sociology, Autopoietic Sociology and Onto-mythology are defined and related to
give multiple approaches to the field of dissipative autopoietic social systems. An
inherent simplicity with a specific mathematical harmony and differentiation is
discovered to underlie these diverse phenomena which connects them to each other
760
as different emergent levels that arise out of General Systems Theory and extend it
into the realms of these specialized systems theories which explain the basis of
some of the most important phenomena in the universe. The inherent complexity of
these phenomena is also explained in relation to their simple foundational structures
which are analogous to algebras.
2. Keywords
General Systems Theory, Autopoietic Systems, Dissipative Systems, Social Systems, Ontology, Algebras,
Complex Numbers, Quaternions, Octonions, Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Psychology, Sociology, Social Theory,
Computational Theory.
Copyright 1994 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved.Pre-publication draft. Not for distribution.
Draft#2 940725; Total pages: 834; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007; File name: STTS1V04.FM
3. Software Design Methods, Computability, and General Systems

Theory
In this paper we will take a series of steps from General Systems Theory to
construct ever more special systems theories in order to define in a mathematically
tractable way the threshold of complexity of social systems. Along the way we will
define similarly dissipative systems and autopoietic systems. We do this in order to
construct a consistent picture of the major building blocks in the theory of reflexive
autopoietic systems. In a prior paper a version of the General Systems Theory of
George Klir was constructed in which each stage of the manifestation of the general
systems theory model was tied to the appearance of a methodological distinction.
Order is not a monolith but can be divided into a lattice of more and more basic
constituent types of order. Each kind of order has been called by George Klir a
methodological distinction and their are five basic kinds or order in this lattice:
No Order (a pure distinction)

Partial Order
Partial Order with Distance
OR Linear Order without Distance
Full Order (Linear Order with Distance)
We are used to dealing with full order in most systems applications. However, for
certain kinds of systems such as software systems other kinds of orderings are
important since some aspects of these systems are impossible to fully order. Close
examination of the relation of orders to simulations of real-time embedded systems
761
shows that the lattice of orders are very important for the understanding of the
relation of design and representational methodologies to these systems. The upshot
of these discoveries is that there are four points of view on every real-time system
(Data, Event, Agent and Function) and that two of these (Data and Event) can be
fully ordered but that the other two (Agent and Function) viewpoints can only be at
most partially ordered. The fact that these viewpoints with different ordering
capacities must be juxtaposed to produce a full representation of a real time system
causes fundamental problems in real-time systems design. It also turns out that the
two kinds of methodological distinctions (Partial Order with Distance and Linear
Order without Distance) which appear between Partial ordering and Full ordering
within the methodological lattice are in fact related to the structure of real-time
design methodologies. These two methodological distinctions are duals of each
other and describe the structure of all minimal methods that serve as
representational bridges between viewpoints. There are twelve such minimal
methods which combine sometimes together and sometimes remain separate that
connect the basic viewpoints on real-time embedded systems.
The fully ordered system description gives us the illusion of a continuous

simulation of that system. Such a simulation for software is indistinguishable from
the system itself. But that running simulation is arrived at by starting at
requirements which are a series of independent distinctions and by applying the
viewpoints of Agent and Function and representing the interaction of those
functions with minimal methods finally arrive at a spacetime representation of the
system that works according to its requirements. Such a system is said to be
embedded in spacetime. There are four different possible embeddings in spacetime
for any system representation. It is also the combination of these embeddings that
render embodiments of the minimal methods. Since the illusory continuity of the
fully ordered system must be turing computable in order to be executed as a
simulation of the system these minimal method pairs of embodiments represent
slices of a turing machine. Systems represented by minimal methods are partially
computable and the composed systems represented by all the minimal methods are
fully computable because of their homeomorphism with the turing machine.
All of this leads to the presumption that there is a general equivalence between a
turing machine and a system represented by all the minimal design methods for
real-time embedded systems as well as to the general formal-structural system such
as that which George Klir defines. Software simulations of embedded real-time
systems are the embodiment of their dual -- General Structural Systems. In other
762
words you can only build systems that have permutations of the General Systems
Architecture and every simulated system embodies some permutation of such an
architecture. In order to run such a simulation or compute the possible
permutations of all possible systems architectures one must have a turing machine
which is computable. There is a general equivalence between all possible
simulations, all possible turing machines and all possible computable systems
architectures.
In each case there is a chiasm embodied within the structure of this computable
machine. In the case of the representation of the simulation of any possible system
there is a chiasm between agent and function viewpoints which arise from their
embeddings in spacetime. In the case of the turing machine there is the difference
between the tape and the state-machine of the turing machine. Since the tape can
represent state-machines we get the possibility of a universal turing machine that
imitates all possible turing machines by reading their state machines from tape and
executing them. Thus there is a chiasm between data and event within the turing
machine. If different sub-turing machines can operate independently apparently
simultaneously this is the representation of an illusion of agency. Similarly if
different multiple turing machines are really operating simultaneously then this is
the reality of agency. The performance of the turing machine may be seen by an
intelligence to be intentional. This intentionality is the representation of
functionality if it is only projected upon the turing machine. If the turing machine is
itself intelligent and is acting intentionally then this is the reality of functionality.
In the case of the architecture of general systems problem solving there is an
epistemological lattice which operates on the object, source, data and generative
levels of system behavior. Each of these levels embody meta-models and meta-
structures that proliferate infinitely into higher and higher meta-levels. These two
chiasmic structures both arise out of the source, data and generative levels
intertwining at their lower levels but separating at higher meta-levels. Meta-models
are the basis of changes of structural patterning. Thus these two represent the
spacetime articulation of the patterning of the dynamic system. Meta-levels give
patternings within patternings within patternings both in space and time. The
interaction of these at the source, data, and generative levels forms a complex
interference pattern that may render the dynamical system under study too complex
to be understood. Each of these chiasms are different aspects of the same thing.
Any given real-time embedded system will have chiasmic representations in
relation to spacetime and autonomy/intentionality. If such a system is simulatable
then these representations are slices of a turing machine that is computable. Such a
763
system is one example from all possible architectures of systems. Such

architectures can be represented by the lattice of Epistemological distinctions
derived by Klir and can be computed using a turing machine implementation that
has itself a design. This is again a way of saying that every dynamic embedded
real-time system that can be represented can be simulated and has one of the
possible architectures from the list of all possible general systems architectures.
This may seem obvious but it appears that no one (known by the author) has
previously made this connection between general systems architectures, their
simulations by turing machines and their design representations. This is generally
because the representation of real-time embedded systems is a relatively new craft
that has grown up in industrial practice of designing software systems. Software
design itself is a new discipline within software engineering. Software is a new
kind of entity which is unlike most other kinds of entities that have previously
existed. This new kind of entity has been analyzed in the author’s paper on
Software Ontology and by other authors. Software is a unique kind of thing which
is very difficult to build. Recently software design methodologies have been
developed on an ad hoc basis to attempt to represent the essentials of the structure
of software. It has been the author’s work to define the four viewpoints and the
sixteen minimal methods that allow all possible essential aspects of software
structure to be defined in two dimensional representations. The connection between
software design methods and general systems theory was later made explicit by the
author. These are dual meta-disciplines that mutually entail each other. Finally the
discovery of the proof that embeddings of the minimal methods in spacetime are
slices of turing machines allows us to understand how simulations are connected to
general architectural permutations. The morphological matrix of all possible
systems architectures is isomorphic to morphological matrix of all possible
simulations and simulations are computable because their designs are partial turing
machines that when completed can be computable. This means that if we design a
simulation of a system from all possible design viewpoints using minimal methods
to link these viewpoints then we will get a computable software system in the end.
The only snag is that some aspects of the system cannot be fully ordered and so
there is a disjunction between the fully ordered simulation embedded in spacetime
and the autonomy and intentionality of that system.
4. Disjunctions between Continuities
It is because of this disjunction between certain design viewpoints and their
764
embodiments in spacetime that we need to study certain special systems beyond

those described by general systems theory. There are three kinds of system beyond
the general system that are of interest. They are the dissipative, the autopoietic and
the reflexive/social systems. These systems only appear in very special
circumstances in nature and one cannot have an autopoietic system that is not
dissipative nor a reflexive/social system that is not autopoietic. In other words they
build on one another. They define very narrowly a special kind of behavior that
only a small number of general systems emulate. Each one is more narrow and
specialized than the next. Yet they are very important to us because they represent
an order/disorder inducing system, a living/cognitive system, and the social/
psychological reflexive system which are very important features of our world.
In a separate paper I have posited that these special systems are poised at particular
thresholds of complexity with specific forms. To the point the dissipative system is
poised at the threshold of complexity of the complex numbers and their algebra.
The autopoietic system is poised at the threshold of the quaternions and Clifford
algebra. The reflexive/social system is poised at the threshold of complexity of the
octave (octonion) and the Cayley algebras. Each level of complexity is arrived at
by doubling of the number of independent kinds of numbers that are involved in the
algebra. The two final layers of special systems appear with weaker algebras which
lack commutative and associative properties respectively. But these algebraic
systems are the only ones possible that can appear as an extension of the real
number system. The complex numbers are recommended by the fact that all the
properties of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division apply to them while
they solve the fundamental problem of the solution of quadratic equations. Another
point of interest is that there are no other possible algebras beyond these three that
come any where close to giving us the fully intertransformable power of the real
numbers and their algebra.
When we append the hierarchy of possible complex and hyper complex algebras
onto the lattice of methodological types we obtain a very interesting theoretical
formation. It is a formation that allows us to understand the structure of general
systems by adding one layer of ordering to the next until we have constructed the
level of complexity that gives us an illusory continuity that is simulatable and turing
computable. But this level which corresponds to the real number then begins to
fragment when we realize that we can have multiple real numbers that form vectors
or form complex and hyper complex numbers. This fragmentation by the
introduction of multiple simultaneous illusory continuities has a peculiar structural
765
form that appears as specific thresholds of complexity. These thresholds of

complexity are exactly those at which the dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive/
social systems appear. The hierarchy composes illusory continuity and then
deconstructs it again. But the deconstruction is not equal to the composition. The
composition is composed of sub-orders below the threshold at which illusory
continuity appears. The destruction occurs because once illusory continuity is
achieved then it becomes possible to have multiple simultaneous illusory
continuities. These have specific algebraic relations to each other when held in
conjunction. If they are not held in conjunction then one kind of real number
cannot be distinguished from the other. Each level of ordering of conjugate real
number lines approximates the algebras of the single real number line to a certain
extent. Complex pairs have all the algebraic properties, quaternions lose the
commutative property and octaves lose the associative property. Finally all
properties are lost and there is no further degenerate algebra that can hold any more
illusory continuities in conjunction. So we can decompose a single real number line
into its sub-orders or we can hold in conjunction multiple illusory continuities of
real number lines. There are only a certain number of these conjunctions that can
occur mathematically and they form particular thresholds of complexity. Beyond
these thresholds it is impossible to hold any higher number than eight illusory
continuities in conjunction. This interestingly enough falls exactly in the seven plus
or minus two range that working memory is adequate to handle.
This identification of the thresholds of complexity of these special systems with the
different possible algebras is important. It allows us for the first time to place what
have been non-mathematically based theories of dissipative, living and social
systems on a firm mathematical footing. Here we are not claiming that these
phenomena in nature are reducible to these simple mathematical forms. We are
instead claiming that the theories of these phenomena have an affinity with these
complexity thresholds. This is to say that when we are representing theoretically
the essence of the dissipative system then to the extent our theory approximates the
structure of the complex number extension of the reals then it will be a more
accurate theoretical representation. Or to the extent that autopoietic theory follows
the form of the quaternions it will be a more accurate representation of the
essentials of living/cognitive dissipative systems. Or finally to the extent social
scientists and psychologists that study reflexive cognitive systems approximate the
structures of octaves their associative Cayley algebras their theories will be more
accurate representations of these phenomena. Why is this so? It is so because these
systems are specializations of general systems and there is only one direction that
766
general systems can specialize which is through the conjunction of simulations. A

conjunctive simulation is one that holds several illusory continuities together within
the same formation. It is not one that allows the simulations to merely operate
independently. Many such simulations are proposed and have been created today in
which there is a society of the mind or where parallel distributed systems interact.
However, complete independence of myriad simulations each producing an illusory
continuity to behavior is not the same as holding some subset of these in
conjunction for some period of time. When we hold them in conjunction we can
apply algebras to them that are the minimal possible algebras giving complete
intertransformability. There are specific thresholds where we can hold more and
more (explicitly two, four and eight) independent strands together in conjunction
while still not losing intertransformability. Two strands are still as
intertransformable as one strand albeit by introducing a strange twist. Four strands
loose the commutative property and eight strands loose the associative property as
well. So intertransformability slowly fades from sight as we keep doubling the
number of strands of illusory continuity we are holding in conjunction.
Parallel distributed computing has many ways of producing simultaneously many

independent illusory continuities. For instance, a hypercube computer may have
sixteen processors working independently or working dependently by exchanging
information. Design of the interaction of multiple independent processors
computing together or sharing information is covered by the set of minimal
methods. These methods control the exchange of data between processors through
communication channels and the relativistic loss of global time which necessitate
understanding the interaction of processor worldlines via message passing
scenarios. But what we are pointing to here is that there is a grey area between
independence of processors and designed or even non-designed exchanges. We can
instead hold the various illusory continuities in conjunction and view their
interfering patternings in a single gaze. When we do this we can hold within our
gaze two, four or eight illusory continuities at the same time. Their interference
patterns when held in conjunction are understood via intertransformabilities
controlled by algebras. These algebraic constraints weaken as we attempt to hold
more and more illusory continuities together in our gaze. But it must be clear that
holding illusory continuities in conjunction is different from merely allowing them
to run open loop without reference to each other. It is also different from producing
relativistic exchange mechanisms by which cooperation is effected “at a distance.”
Instead their is the fuzzy area in which two streams of illusory continuity effectively
become a single hybrid steam within our gaze by being held in conjunction and
767
intermingling. We are severely limited as to how many processing streams can be

held in conjunction simultaneously. In fact both short term memory and algebra
collude to limit us to at most eight. Thus only a small part of a parallel distributed
system of processors can form this hybrid combined illusory stream. In fact we are
limited to at most a cube of processors. So our gaze cannot dominate even a whole
hypercube. We can see these hybrid streams of conjunction as meta-gestalts arising
on the background of a field of semi independent processors. As we later our gaze
different processors might be brought into the meta-gestalts of the hybrid stream.
As we narrow the focus to fewer processors then the intertransformability between
the processors illusory continuities becomes stronger. In the hybrid stream we
project the action of ordering principles that are seen as dissipative systems where
only two streams of continuities of processors are combined into a single hybrid
stream. But if we instead combine four illusory continuities into a hybrid stream at
the quaternion level then we can project into that imaginings of artificial
intelligence or life. We lose the power of the commutative property but gain
asymmetries that can be interpreted as living/cognitive characteristics within the
meta-hybrid stream of illusory continuity. If we go further we can alter our
conjunctive gaze to combine eight processors into a single meta-meta-hybrid stream
of presencing or artificial manifestation. That level of artificial continuity can be
seen as supporting all the aspects of sociality in which the artificial cognitive living
organisms bathe mutually enfolding one another. We lose the power of the
associative property but gain further peculiarities in the structure of the hyper-
hyper-stream of illusion which allows us to imagine the social and psychological
characteristics that resonate with our own understanding of ourselves. In fact the
hybrid streams are merely artificial mirrors into which we gaze seeing aspects of
ourselves reflected in the distorted mirror of computational constructs.
5. Dissipative Systems
Dissipative systems hold two strands of illusory continuity together. They concern
the situation where there are two orders that are in imbalance so that one order is
displacing the other. Notice that if there is only one order there cannot be a
dissipative system. Also if the two orders are in balance or stasis there cannot be a
dissipative system. A dissipative system is when there are two different orders or
ordering mechanisms that are out of balance with each other so that one ordering
mechanism is disordering the other and creating a boundary between the two orders
that is disordered or represents in some way an interference between the two
ordering mechanisms where one is dominant and the other is being dominated.
768
This case has the basic form of vector arithmetic or the complex number system that
holds the order of the real numbers together with the ordering of the imaginary
numbers. The complex number system includes both imaginary and real numbers.
The differentiation between the two is indeed imaginary because either number
could be designated as real and the asymmetry between imaginary and real numbers
is an illusion which comes directly from their conjunction not from the numbers
themselves. In the case of the complex number system the reals are dominant and
the complex numbers are subservient. We only actually see the relation between
the two if we place the complex axis at right angles to the real axis. When we look
at the field of these numbers what becomes apparent to us is the form of the
mandelbrot set. The mandelbrot set is the most complex mathematical object
known to man. This set is composed by iteratively taking each point and
multiplying it by itself and measuring the rate at which it escapes toward infinity.
All real numbers escape toward infinity at the same rate. The numbers that
represent the intersection between real and complex have different rates of escape
toward infinity. We will follow Deleuze and Guattari and call each of those escape
velocity weights the line of flight of a particular point. Dissipative systems have an
interface between their two orderings (that of the system and that of its
environment) which is very complicated. It involves myriad lines of flight that
produce and infinitely complicated pattern which is still determinate. This variable
instability of individual pairs of numbers that represent the conjunction of each
point in one illusory continuity with a point in the other illusory continuity with
which it is held in conjunction tells us that the individual orders that are actually
simulated in each of these continuities will have a very complex interaction. It is as
if the individual pairs of numbers that formed the substrate for comparison between
orderings were unstable and had inherent tendencies to move at specific
accelerations. This means that the interference patterns between orderings have a
component of variation that comes from the very fabric of the medium through
which they interact. There is no doubt that this causes conjugate orderings to
interact in highly unstable ways and causes endless variations in the diffusive and
dissipative patterns by which this interaction occurs. Such interactions are in fact
called Chaotic. Within an interaction between two orderings it is possible to fall
into a state in which all possible orderings appear. When all possible orderings
appear we call that state Chaos. This is different from merely random ordering that
is still a specific and constrained ordering. Chaos is a disordering that has ordering
within it interembedded to an infinite fractal depth.
The form of a dissipative system appears where there is a boundary with its
769
environment. The system has an active ordering principle that is introducing order
from specific center(s) within the system. At the boundary the dissipative system is
disordering the environment pouring entropy into it at some rate related to the rate
at which it is itself being ordered. The ratio between these rates is normally such
that the boundary of the dissipative system is expanding. But it is possible to have
dissipative systems where the introduction of order is exactly matched with the
entropy it is injecting into the environment. Such a system is homeostatic in the
maintenance of its boundary. If the ratio tips over the other way then the
environment is pouring more entropy into the dissipative system than the
dissipative system is giving out. Such a system is being destroyed by the
environment which is normally seen as a catastrophic collapse of the dissipative
system. Order enters the dissipative system through a singularity within the
system. The singularity within the dissipative system is a place were order appears
from “nowhere.” This singularity is the dual of the boundary. It marks a boundary
with a higher dimensional space through which ordering is pouring into the
dissipative system. Normally we only hear about the outer boundary of the
dissipative system and this inner boundary is ignored. But theoretically the outer
boundary to the environment must be matched by an inner boundary to the
environment. If we think of the dissipative system occurring in four dimensional
space then understanding the existence of such a singularity is no problem. Normal
spacetime is three real dimensions in space plus time. The dual of spacetime is
timespace. Timespace was formulated by Minkowoski and is composed of three
dimensions of time plus nowhere. Nowhere is an unreachable portion of four
dimensional timespace considered to be decomposable into light cones with
different inertial frames of reference. Minkowoski timespace considers the
causality inherent in relativity theory. It posits that some portions of timespace are
unreachable from other portions of timespace given specific inertial references
frames.
We apply this model to the dissipative system which is embedded in spacetime and
can be looked at from the point of view of timespace. Notice that in timespace and
spacetime there are four different continuities being brought into conjunction.
What is continuous from one point of view becomes discontinuous from the other
point of view. This is where the duality of spacetime and timespace arises from as
theoretical viewpoints of the matrix from which they chiasmicly arise. A
dissipative system inscribes orders on the different illusory continuities within the
matrix underlying the timespace and spacetime chiasm. Specifically it reorders the
space continua based on a driver that operates in the time continuum. Here we are
770
assuming that order is generated by some algorithm. As has been pointed out by
Goertzel and others the complexity of the algorithm is a good measure of the
complexity of the order being imposed as a pattern. We differ from Goertzel in that
we recognize a whole series of emergent ontological levels at which ordering may
be taking place and do not reduce all patterning to the structural or primitive level
beneath the level of forms or shapes. The algorithm that is ordering cannot be at the
same level as the continuum being ordered. Let us take the example of cellular
automata. When we see cellular automata we normally see a field of cells with
colors representing their current state. The rules that lie behind all of these cells in
the field are different from the field of states they operate upon. Where are they in
relation to the field of colored cells representing the states of the automata?
Nowhere! And this is made clear by the fact that there is normally one set of rules
for the entire field of automata. In other words the rules are at a meta-level of some
kind over the field of cells states. This meta-level in this case allows one rule set to
cover all automata within the field. Within this set of rules there can be different
ordering imperatives that are alternated between depending on the state of the
automata. This allows cellular automata to emulate dissipative systems very well.
We can see the imposition of order and the disordering of ranges of cells that lie on
the border between different ordering imperatives. The the patterns of order
imposition which then disorders the environment will give a definite perceptual
boundary to the patterns in many cases. Or different centers of ordering imperative
(that appear in the same rule set as different sets of related rules) may interfere with
each other producing infinite varieties of chaotic patterns. In either case the
boundary is only perceptible from a viewpoint raised out of the field of automata
states itself, and the rules also occur in disjunction from the field of automata states.
But rules and boundary are duals. Rules only change automata states because they
are stimulated by some different situation among the neighboring automata. Thus
the boundary that is seen perceptually only appears because each automata can be
aware of its neighbors and react. This means the perceptual discontinuity is a
function of the local continuity between automata. Correspondingly the rules must
be sufficiently complex to contain internal cycles of states that will allow different
orders to appear. Sometimes this internal differentiation of the rules can be very
simple and still produce very complex behavior in the total field of automata. But
just as the rules are ignorant of the specific context so the boundaries we see are not
felt globally across the field of automata. So although there is a duality between
boundary of the dissipative system with its environment and the boundary with the
meta-level at the singularity these two may not be connected and may be caused by
connections between things that are not immediately apparent. For instance the
771
boundary in fields of cellular automata are illusions that occur because of local
awareness of neighbors and structures of rules. Those boundaries are not directly
related to the rules but are in fact a side effect of the specific context of every
automata in the entire field and the structure of the rules.
This simulation of a dissipative system by cellular automata is very informative

because it shows how the ordering principle from no where is not something
mystical but very concrete. It tells us that the rules must be at some meta-level or
the same set cannot apply to all automata. It shows that the duality of the
singularity within the system bounding it with nowhere is just as important as the
boundary of the dissipative system with its environment. It shows us that the outer
boundary may be an illusion and that local connectivity may be more significant
than global patterning. And finally it shows that the perception of the continuity of
the field of the dissipative system must be lifted out of the plane of that system just
like the ordering principle must occur at a meta-level. Thus there is a chiasmic
relation between viewpoints and meta-levels of ordering that appears in the
dissipative system. A dissipative system may not know it is one thing. To it there
might be just local interactions according to some ordering principle that because it
is located nowhere applies everywhere and gives the automata a patterning it is not
aware of itself.
We will call such systems Openly-Closed. They are different from Closed systems
which are normally mechanical and Open systems that are aware of their
environment and are in some way permeable. Instead Openly-Closed systems are
closed to their environment externally but open to them internally through some
meta-connection. For instance, the openly-closed system blindly pours entropy into
the environment while it accepts order from nowhere internally that appears at a
singularity within the system. Such systems are closed because they do not react to
their environment except to disturb and disorder it. No information crosses the
boundary to the environment from outside to inside. All transfers of information
are from inside to outside in-forming the environment with a new pattern that is
produced by the dissipative system. The system does however accept information
flowing from nowhere with its boundaries. Those points of order production are
called singularities and from them radiate ordered patterns that move out toward the
boundary and interact with the environment to form the expanding boundary of
anti-production. This system is blind in that it has no cognitive awareness of what it
is doing internally or externally. It is accepting blindly programming from above
and is carrying out that programming in such a way that increasingly disorders the
772
environment as it continues to order itself. We might think of such a system as

“channeling” messages from a higher source which causes increased order inside
the boundary and increased disorder outside the boundary in the environment.
Dissipative systems are also complicated as well because they have another
important aspect that is usually not noted. There is always a principle of symmetry
operating in any dissipative system. In this case it is the symmetry between rules
within the set of rules that define the dissipative system. The disorder that appears
are from broken symmetry between the rules that are for the most part symmetrical.
This is why one pattern has a slight advantage over the other. But the rules need to
be symmetrical to a great degree to allow both kinds of order to appear in the field
of the automata. This means that a particular automata can transition in and out of
an ordering regime but it tends to transition one way more than the other in certain
contexts. For instance, certain rules sets will start with a random pattern of states in
the automata and will transform it into some kind of global order. Others need a
specific ordered patterning to the field of automata states in order to produce their
effects. Without an ordered patterning of input states it produces disorder or no
order (lack of order). Rules cause transitions based on the states of neighbors and
the self state. But transitions need to be bi-directional predominantly otherwise the
ordering of the field of automata will remain “uninteresting.” It is only when there
is symmetry with some degree of asymmetry that “interesting” interference patterns
occur because then individual cells will transition back and forth between states that
are part of one order or the other order or are disordered in relation to the two orders
many times before settling down into some stable set cycle of states that
predominate within the dissipative system as opposed to its boundary. Thus
symmetry of rules and a “pinch” of asymmetry are essential to getting complex and
interesting patterns to occur at the system boundary with its environment.
Singularities are where ordered patterns appear at specific spots within the system.
From them radiate patternings of order. They signify a boundary with the Nowhere
that house the universal rules. But within the rules are symmetries that allow
transformations between ordering regimes and some degree of built in asymmetry
that allows the system to be dissipative instead of static or cyclical in some
uninteresting way. This relation between singularities that pour forth order and
symmetries that allow asymmetries to be seen will become very important as this
essay unfolds.
The dissipative system unfolds its order and expands its boundaries in space acting
neg-entropically in time. If we reverse the time arrow we get the collapse of the
773
dissipative system instead. But if we switch to looking at it from the perspective of

timespace we see that each order has its causal domain which it effects and that
there are regions overlapping with the other order that are not effected by any
causality from the one. These envelopes of causality overlap to create areas which
are in both. Or there may be areas that are not ordered by any ordering principle.
These envelopes of causality are equivalent to the light cones in Minkowoski
spacetime. What is interesting is that ordering principles act independently as
subsets of the rules list. They act locally to produce global patterns as side effects.
Part of this structure is the symmetry of cellular automata nodes. They all have the
same structure and see the same neighbors and are indistinguishable from each
other. This symmetry is the dual of the symmetry of operations embedded in the
rules. The independence of the nodes is opposite the independence of the
individual rules. The interaction of the rules acting together to form cyclical state
spaces is the opposite of the interaction of the nodes with their neighbors. The
symmetry of the operations in the rules is opposite the symmetry of the
indistinguishable nodes. The artifacts of boundaries between dissipative systems or
dissipative systems and their environment is opposite to the artifacts of the
singularities from which patterns arise seemingly from nowhere within the system.
All these dualities working together produce the appearance of ordering principles
which have their separate domains and interact at boundaries or interact with
passive environments. These envelopes of causality appear when we take the
timespace perspective on the dissipative system rather than the spacetime
perspective. The spacetime perspective sees only the pseudo field of connected
cellular automata as an illusory continuity advancing in time as a dissipative
system. The timespace perspective sees instead the causal envelopes of the
ordering principles and their interaction which can occur because of slight
asymmetries in the sub-sets of rules that define the ordering principles cyclical state
machines.
One final point of importance about the dissipative system is that it has a form
similar to the mobius strip which has one surface and one edge globally but appears
to have two edges and two surfaces locally. This analogy of the dissipative system
and the mobius strip is very important. It shows us that the single boundary of the
system uses the freedom of a higher dimensional space to twist back on itself to
produce a seeming paradox of difference between local and global configuration.
In the example of the dissipative system we are referring to the energy flows in
which order is created at the singularity flows out to the boundary which is
expanding and crosses that boundary as entropy disordering the environment. The
774
environment in turn influences the dissipative system multidimensionally at a meta-

level producing the order appearing at the singularity within the dissipative system.
This energy flow across internal and external boundaries of the dissipative system
back through a higher dimensionality into the dissipative system again is like an
Escher waterfall which feeds itself. We see how this can occur if we say that order
is conserved. If order is conserved then the ordering of the dissipative system
internally must be balanced by entropy inwardly. That means that the disordered
environment needs to produce ordering within the dissipative system to make up for
its loss of order outside so there is a direct connection from the global environment
back on the dissipative system functioning multidimensionally as the entropy
outside is turned into new order inside. But we know that order is not conserved so
that this loop is not realized in most cases. In fact this loop can only actually be
realized if it is closed by the functioning of another loop which is its dual opposite.
However, it is important to realize that every dissipative system has the possibility
of realizing such a path where the global environment effects the dissipative system
from the inside instead of the outside. We call this presence of the outside inside an
oracle. In other words the structural system has incommensurate singularities within
it that appear in the margins between the overlapping viewpoints applied to it
forming blindspots. These blind spots occur at the point where singularities appear
within the flawed structure of the system. At these points higher dimensional
entries from the outside without crossing the outer boundary appear. These oracular
points may be seen as windows out on the whole of the environment. We see this in
cellular automata. The singularities where order is produced show us how the rules
impinge on the specific field of cellular automata given a specific set of states
associated with each automata in the field. The rules are global the structure of the
field where each automata sees eight neighbors is global and these global aspects of
the environment is impinging upon this specific node in the field to produce an
ordering that does not appear elsewhere or only a few other places within the
interior of the dissipative system. A hidden aspect of the global environment is
seen at the singularity where this possibility is recognized as a unique coordination
of rules and states of the automata field.
The oracle is a word that was chosen also to describe the next higher level construct
above a turing machine. Turing oracles are universal turing machines that define
the limits of computability ever more finely. The boundary between the
computable and the non computable is not clear cut. Many times we might need
multiple turing machines working together to define that boundary to some degree
of resolution. We are never sure when the non-computable will intrude on our
775
computations and simulations of systems. Turing oracles answer the question

whether a specific computation is indeed computable. They give a meta-source’s
answer within the process or computation as to whether computation is feasible.
Through the idea of the oracle we realize that we do not always know whether a
given operation is computable even in the midst of trying to compute it. Intrusions
of non-computability are flaws in our computing structures and we call them
defects or errors. It is well recognized that all software programs except for the
very simplest that are “proven correct” have hidden errors that may or may not
manifest during execution causing faults. You never know how many defects a
program still has or when they will appear due to a peculiar combination of
circumstances. But when they appear they are manifest as flaws that interrupt the
computability of the software program. When a flaw appears suddenly one
discovers something about the environment of the program that was not known
before. Thus flaws are windows on aspects of the global environment that give us
more information than we had before. Similarly if something cannot be computed
because it takes too long or is theoretically impossible to compute like halting this
tells us something indirectly about the nature of the environment which has an
aspect is too complex to simulate. We may use turing oracles in order to refine our
definition of this boundary between what is computable and what is not but
ultimately this boundary always exists within the dissipative system. For instance if
for some reason the dissipative was sophisticated enough to need to know the
shortest path around all its nodes so that it required some knowledge of the answer
to the Traveling Salesman program then only approximations will be possible and
the ultimate answer will not be available within the dissipative system. In this case
there would be a non-computable flaw within the dissipative system that is
approached via estimations. So non-computability may be built into the very fabric
of the operation of the dissipative system for which it compensates. These non-
computable approximated quantities are flaws within the computational fabric of
the dissipative system. They do not have to be errors but may instead be merely
non-computable values that have to be arrived at heuristically. Turing oracles
approximate these singularities of non-computability closer and closer in order to
give an arbitrarily fine definition to computability. In this way we see that even the
turing machine has a special form at the dissipative level which is used to delimit
computability. And that form of the turing machine may be used to locate the flaws
in the fabric of the computability. These occur either because the software program
has errors in which case the oracle may merely be a test program or if the flaw is
inherently non-computable in itself then the oracle might just be used to get a better
definition on the point where non-computability appears so that an estimate may be
776
made by some other means.

6. Autopoietic Systems
Autopoietic systems hold four strands of ordered illusory continuity in conjunction

simultaneously. This is composed by combining additively two dissipative
systems. The mathematical threshold at which the theory of such a system is poised
is the same as that of the quaternion and its associated Clifford Algebras. The fact
that an autopoietic system is actually two dissipative systems “glued” together is a
new conception of this relatively new theoretical construction that attempts to
define life. Autopoiesis means self-producing. It refers to the ability of “living”
machines to organize themselves. It was first posited as a theory by two biologists
Maturana and Varela. This theory has some counterintuitive aspects that we will
not dwell on here. Our point is that the theory of autopoietic systems and
quaternions are at the same threshold of complexity and that autopoietic theory
should be modeled on the structure of quaternions in order to best approximate the
actual structure of living/cognitive systems.
We can see this best if we first realize that Autopoietic systems allow the order/
energy loop of dissipative systems to be closed. This is done by making one
dissipative system the channel for the other. This is like taking two mobius strips
and “gluing” them together. We know that this form is the pentahedron in four
dimensional space (the analog of the three dimensional tetrahedron but with five
points, ten lines, ten sides and forming five tetrahedrons). In our case though we
shall instead imagine that we have one mobius strip expressed as a medium in
which solitons are moving and the other mobius strip is expressed as a mobius strip.
In this model the solitons are flowing along the trough of the mobius strip. To
imagine this it is necessary to see the mobius strip bowed to form a trough and the
bowing moves with the soliton forming a transverse solitary wave moving around
the mobius strip. Or conversely one can see the wave as moving through the
medium of the strip that exists as the displacement between the edge and surface.
The mobius strip is closed but the trough is reused at each point by the fact there is
only one boundary and one surface. What is outside from one point of view is
inside from the other point of view in relation to the trough. So now energy is not
just flowing and transforming but is held in check by the presence of the other
mobius strip that acts as a channeler for the loop of energy conserving its order.
Because of this the autopoietic system can act as a perpetual motion machine. The
conservation of its order is its own self-production or self-organization. Perpetual
777
motion is possible in four dimensional space even though it is denied in three

dimensional space. Our world is four dimensional. But we get two views of this
four dimensionality as either spacetime or timespace. This is why Maturana and
Varela say that a autopoietic unity made up of nodes must be embodied in space and
may not just be theoretical constructs. Its self regulation based on an internalized
hypercycle (like the rules of the cellular automata) appears to occur within spatial
boundaries and maintains the structure of the autopoietic system homeostatically
over time. But from a timespace viewpoint we can say that within every autopoietic
system there are two ordering principles that are interacting. These take the form of
dissipative systems that are interacting to produce the self-organizing structure of
the autopoietic system between them. Effectively the autopoietic system appears in
the interface between these two interacting dissipative regimes. We can think of
them as connecting the disorder of one dissipative system to the ordering of the
other and vice versa. The two dissipative systems symbiotically feed off each other.
They do so in such a way that organization is conserved. This is like a perpetual
motion machine made up of two Escher waterfalls intertwined. Together they each
have a twist that fits together with the twist in the other to produce a perfect unity.
One waterfall is the energy of the system moving through the inner and outer
boundaries. On the outside the other Escher waterfall takes that energy up to the
meta-level and channels it back to the oracle at the center of the other dissipative
system. Each Escher waterfall helps the other so that neither lose energy and they
constantly compensate for each other in such a way that they channel each other.
One waterfall appears as soliton waves moving thorough the mobius strip channel
of the other. From one point of view one is the non-entropic wave formation and
the other is the channel but from the other point of view the situation is reversed.
These fused dynamic mobius strips may be seen as a Kleinian bottle. This is to say
the pair acting together is closed as autopoietic systems are posited to be.
This vision of autopoietic systems as interwoven pairs of dissipative systems is an

important contribution to the understanding of these very special systems that give
us machines that self-organize and imitate the phenomenon of life. Such systems
are living/cognitive. This means that they combine artificial life and artificial
intelligence together into a unity. We can understand this if we refer to Geortzel’s
concept of the Perceptual-Cognitive loop. We see such a loop not as an algorithmic
loop within the brain but can be seen in terms of the static mobius trough through
which the solitons move. This loop is perceptual from one side locally and
cognitive on the other side locally. Globally perception and cognition are the same
thing. The opposite loop Goertzel recognizes as having to do with the movement of
778
materials from short term to long term memory and vice versa. Instead I would talk
about a recognition/memory loop. On one side it contains memories and on the
other side it contains recognitions. Globally what you can recognize is the same as
what you can remember. Recognition occurs within the field of short term memory.
In this sense we return to Plato’s dictum that learning is just remembering. This is
to say that the transition between recognition and memory is reversible similar to
the reversibility of percepts and concept. As Husserl says there is no percept
without some conceptual aspect and no concept without some perceptual
component. This is why Husserl defines noema and noesis as differing degrees of
combination of intentionality and the hyle or matter of consciousness (i.e. pure
quality).. Similarly there is a reversibility between Memory and what is learned or
recognized. Something cannot be memorized without being recognized. Similarly
something cannot be recognized unless there is some memory to base a recognition
on. This is true of even novel things. To see them at all we must have some
framework for understanding them at least partially even if that framework is
ultimately wrong. Without at least such an inadequate framework to begin with we
would se nothing instead of something. As Feyerabend says perceptions are
forgotten theories.
Thus we can see the psychological system, such as Goertzel attempts to define as a
combination of two dissipative systems one composed locally of perception and
cognition but which identifies these globally and the other composed locally of
recognition and memory but which identifies these globally. Together these two
interoperate so one forms the basis of the energetic flow of the other. We can see
either as static and the other as dynamic. Thus we can see perception/cognition
operating on the basis of memory/recognition as Goertzel does or we can see
memory/recognition operating on the basis of perception/cognition. In the latter
case instead of an algorithm like loop of perception moving toward cognition and
back out again we see that perception/cognition channels memory/recognition.
This is much like the insight of Powers that behavior controls perception as well as
the reverse. Here perception and cognition control memory and recognition. This
difference in viewpoint is similar to the difference with the framing of the relation
between what Goertzel calls the dual networks. He sees the memory related
network as a heterarchy and he sees the control processing network as related to
hierarchy. I have noticed that to make his theory social instead of psychological
these two roles of the network in relation to heter- and hier-archy must be switched.
Agency is a heterarchy and related to control while Functionality is a hierarchy and
related to association. Here we might say that Wm. T. Power’s insight that
779
behavior controls perception allows us to relate the perceptual/cognitive loop to

heterarchical agency while the memory/recognition loop is related to hierarchical
functionality. The heterarchical agency forms the distributed parallel field of the
actors that make up the society of the mind that handles perception and cognition.
The hierarchical functionality forms the branching tree of intentionality which
allows memory and recognition to occur and reinforce each other. Memory means
organizing information in this tree while recognition means using the information in
the tree to bring it to bear on a perception or cognition. This operates like a B++
tree algorithm for storing data. Certain functions places information in the tree for
efficient recovery. Other functions allow the information to be retrieved given a
key field. Kinds of work are organizations of memories where the memory entails
certain kinds of actions. Thus memories control actions similar to the way
perceptions do. A recognition may call out a completely autonomous action group
or a habit. Goertzel relates the concept of habit to pattern. He gives pattern a
meaning somewhat like an ideational gloss, it is a coherent abstraction from a more
complex pattern. However, he has not explained how a pattern can be a habit. I
would venture to say that action lies between the perceptual/cognitive loop and the
recognition/memory loop. Actions can be guided and controlled by either loop.
When one loop is active the other is passive. If the action is controlled by the
perceptual/cognitive loop then it is related to heterarchical agency and autonomy
and if it is controlled by the memory/recognition loop then it is related to
hierarchical functionality and intentionality. So any specific action may be thought
out and related to behavior that control perceptions (or the reverse) or it may be
based on recognitions that call up memories as habits. In the first case we can
explain the production of behavior by the functioning of an algorithm that does
calculations producing patterns. In the second case we explain the production of the
behavior by the habits that are pre-stored reactions. The pre-stored action
sequences are not calculated but instead are precomputed and just read from
memory and enacted when the circumstance is recognized. Of course the second
means of accessing is much quicker and effective at producing split second
responses but such responses are somewhat blind in that once the execution is
started there is no guiding them nor making calculations along the way. Thus what
appears as an algorithmically generated pattern from the perceptual/cognitive loop
is a direct reading from memory of a habit from the point of view of the recognition/
memory loop. Of course since the two mobius strips combine to make up a
Kleinian bottle there is a global Sameness to the two loops as well.
From this insight we move toward the question of what is non-dual action.
780
perception, and thought. We notice that we must add to Loy’s triad also non-dual
memory and non-dual recognition. Re-cognition is neither perception nor cognition.
Both of these assume distance from the object and the ability to manipulate it either
physically or mentally. Recognition is pattern matching that is faster than ether
perception or cognition and does not assume distance. One sees something from
the corner of the eye and reacts -- later one realizes that it must have been a bug
flying from out of nowhere too close to the eye. One’s body reacts and that reaction
may be to call up memories. Or the reaction may be to store a memory of
something or someone for later reference. Likewise there is no distance from
memories except temporal distance. The perceptual/cognitive loop can be seen to
project spacetime while the recognition-memory loop projects timespace. When a
memory is activated then we see it impinging on our consciousness in an
unmediated way from inside. Non-dual recognition means to recognize something
as the same despite differences. Non-dual memory means recollect a primal scene.
A non-dual memory is a memory of a scene that is always the same. One
recognizes the primal scene as the same with itself over and over again. The primal
scene covers over yet indicates the always already lost origin. Recognition is the
returning to the same and finding it new and the same again and again where
difference and sameness intermingle. These two non-dual resources within us unite
together to give us what Nietzsche called eternal return of the same.
Similarly we can say that the perceptual and cognitive loop is the manifestation of
the will to power. It is our means of initiating distance in the world and it is through
that distance that we control and manipulate things in the world that we have first
separated ourselves from. Non-dual perception is one that does not separate the
object from the process of perception itself. Looking into the distance if we
unfocus and see the whole scene then we have achieved non-dual perception.
Similarly non-dual cognition is one in which what is cognized is no different from
the process of cognition. Thus a single thought held in awareness through
contemplation gives us non-dual cognition. In both cases we revel in the process of
perception not what is seen and in the process of cognition not what is thought.
These together can be related to consciousness without object. When consciousness
has no object then it takes its own states as its object. A free flowing field of
consciousness is produced which does not attach itself to any thought or perception.
Non-dual thought and perception is related to this flowing field of consciousness
which is epitimized by optimal flow experience. When this occurs the will to
power is stopped dead in its tracks. Normally this would entail a switch to a
recognition of the remembered same. This is why Nietzsche speaks of these two
781
principle as being opposites.
However, we can also see that between non-dual perception/cognition which

exhibits optimal flow and non-dual memory/recognition that exhibits return of the
same there is non-dual action. Action is the interference pattern produced between
the two dissipative systems or dual networks. Normally one network or the other is
the cause of action. However when optional flow is connected to return of the same
then one enters into the realm of eternity. This means that when optimal flow
centers around the continual recognition of the same then what appears to be a
perpetual motion machine is created in consciousness which causes action to be
produced from a single center. Action is unified when its organizing principles are
organized into a single coherent source. This is the realization of the autopoietic
system within the psychological realm. This is an altered state of consciousness
which has been called “Sat Chit Ananda” in the Hindu tradition. We associate it
with bliss and perfection of Being. It produces a completely unified human being
with coherent actions that revolve around the Same within a consciousness of
optimal flow. This has been a state that many traditions have attempted to achieve
by many different spiritual disciplines. This state is our reference for understanding
states of lesser coherence. It is not possible to build a model of consciousness that
does not take into account more coherent states and expect to find them there when
we finish. Instead we must remember that it is the autopoietic system that is the
fundamental model of the cognitive/living. Living implies suffering and only that
which remembers can suffer so life includes within it an implicit reference to
memory. Thus the cognitive/living system must be equivalent to the combination
of the perceptual/cognitive loop and the recognition/memory loops into a single
autopoietic unity.
That unity is poised exactly on the threshold of complexity of the quaternion

system. We speculate that like the mandelbrot set (M1) that appears at the level of
the complex numbers there is a meta-mandelbrot set (M2) at the level of the
quaternion, and again another meta-meta-mandelbrot set (M3) at the level of the
octave. These mandelbrot sets of higher dimension supply even more complex
lines of flight at each progressive level of organization specifying micro chaotic
instabilities and tendencies or propensities that mark the interaction of the pairs of
dissipative systems that interface to produce an autopoietic system. So even though
these systems with their strange twists are very regular there is embedded in the
very fabric of the vectors that make them up an infinitely granular set of chaotic
propensities that make it so that the complexity of the possible interactions are
782
infinite. This variation due to contrary propensities is woven directly into the fabric
of the spacetime continuum. This is why Davidson discovers infinite fake R4
topologies. The very substance of spacetime/timespace matrix is chaotic at its
center. The quaternion and its Clifford algebras give the intertransformability that
is necessary for the illusion of continuity. At this level this intertransformability is
limited by the absence of the commutative property. Going one direction does not
automatically allow you to reverse and go the opposite direction to get back to
where you started. However, all other aspects of the system that give
intertransformability are preserved at this new level. The loss of the commutative
property opens up a chasm. New routes need to be explored to allow one to return
to ones starting position in case reversal or inversion does not work. In fact because
the quaternion is globally connected there are round about ways back to ones
starting point through the application of multiple transformations. But the chasm of
non-commutativeness allows the two dissipative systems room to maneuver with
respect to each other maintaining their integrity while still interacting. The split
between the dissipative systems because of non-commutativeness opens up more
asymmetries in the heart of the autopoietic system and it is out of those action
unfolds. Actions are the manifestation of asymmetries of energies in the world.
Actions come out of the heart of the autopoietic system. That heart is a whole
network of flaws that work together to form the network of the autopoietic system
itself. In the dissipative system the flaws were random and did not work together.
In the autopoietic system the flaws (oracles) form a network and work together to
channel the oracular information from nowhere into an organization that is the
same, eternally returning to the same, its own structure appears as a homeostatically
maintained variable of the autopoietic system. The autopoietic system remembers
its own structure and recognizes itself. It is through self-memory and self-
recognition that the autopoietic system is able to maintain itself. But the autopoietic
system also maintains its boundaries internally and externally. Perception relates to
the monitoring of the boundary. The movement of the boundary which is different
is a perception. These differences accumulate into differences that make a
difference. Those differences that make a difference are processed by cognition.
Cognition is merely the ability to make and transform abstractions. Guilford gives
a morphology of the possible transformations by cognition that are the constituents
of intelligence. Abstractions are subsets of the patterns of perception which are
significant. We call these abstractions glosses because they leave out a lot of detail
and present just the bare bones for manipulation by cognitive transformations. But
both cognition and perception imply there is an illusory continuity that these
perceptual and abstract differences are seen on the background of. In fact we can
783
see that perception and cognition are mostly about the maintenance of background
illusory continuity and only as a side effect about the differences that make a
difference and their significations. Thus the autopoietic system has an imperative to
maintain its boundary and the perceptual cognitive loop is about maintaining that
illusion of the continuity of that boundary. What appears projected on that
boundary (either the inward one or the outward one) is of less importance.
However these projections are moved by the perturbations from the environment
and so give some indication of the relation of the environment to the autopoietic
system. We call the relation to the inner boundary mind and the relation to the outer
boundary body. Perception and Cognition as has been said are two sides of the
same coin. Both concern differences that make a difference. One concerns
differences that make a difference with regard to significations that arise at the inner
boundary and the other differences that make a difference with regard to
perceptions or perturbations in the outer boundary. So we see that there is a direct
relation between the two loops and the fundamental imperatives of the autopoietic
system. The autopoietic system maintains itself as itself by remembering and
recognizing itself. The autopoietic system maintains its boundary inwardly and
outwardly and finds projected upon that illusory continuity differences that it must
continually correct to maintain itself as different from the external environment and
the meta-environment.
Action issues from the heart of the autopoietic system. All living things have
behaviors. This is because it is the interference region between the two dissipative
systems and arises out of the asymmetries that occur because of commutativeness
property at the quaternion level. The actions continuously change the relation of
the boundary to the environment and also continuously change the arrangement of
the nodes (flaws) in the autopoietic network. Action is external and internal and
through action manifestation is maintained. Constant erratic movement is
necessary to keep things in manifestation. The autopoietic system produces this
constant erratic movement so it can see itself. Making itself visible makes it visible
to others as something living not dead and it makes other things visible to it by
allowing the perceptual apparatuses to work. Thus action makes perception possible
and perception guides action and then again action controls what is seen by the
perceptual apparatus. So there is a continuous feedback between the organism and
the environment where one effects the other which in turn effects it so that in the
end you cannot say which started it. This means there is dependent co-arising
between the organism and the environment. “Environment” is the environment OF
some organism. There is mutual co-dependence and synergy relating the organism
784
and its environment. However, it is important to realize that action unfolds

naturally out of the autopoietic system (A point not usually made) and that it is
through action that manifestation and presencing are made to occur. The
autopoietic system is at the level of complexity where Being first appears. Being is
the dynamic of manifestation and presencing. Here it is undifferentiated Being but
it exists and needs to be taken into account in our ontology of autopoietic systems.
Autopoietic systems project their own being by making it possible for other things
to manifest to it and for itself to manifest to other things. Undifferentiated Being
issues with action from the heart of the Autopoietic system and it appears as the
interference and cooperation between the two dissipative halves plus the
asymmetries that appear at this level because commutative properties do not exist
giving rise to special asymmetries that make presencing possible. Presencing is the
manifestation of asymmetries. This is the stuff of consciousness. Everything that is
symmetrical vanishes and are not manifest even if oppressively there somewhere
we cannot see them. Actions attempt to compensate for these asymmetries that
appear as the stuff of consciousness on the top of the invisible symmetries of
everything that does not appear.
A point that needs to be made strongly is that in the Autopoietic system the two
dissipative systems are balanced against one another. If the dissipative system is in
balance then it is not dissipative it is only dissipative if it is out of balance with its
environment or other systems it is reordering. But for the autopoietic system there
is a balance between the environment and the dissipative system or between two
dissipative systems. Thus we move from the lack of balance where balance means
death to a level at which dynamic balance becomes possible. Dynamic balance
opens up a horizon of presencing within the living/cognitive system. This is
possible because in this special case the disordering from one dissipative system
becomes the internal ordering of the other system and vice versa. The two
dissipative systems form a symbiotic mutually interdependent relationship. They in
effect become one supra-system. But that supra-system comes about by the
addition of two dissipative systems exits as long as they are held in conjunction.
We can also understand the autopoietic systems as universal turing machines.

Each node in the universal turing machine is a turing machine with a special
purpose. Where at the dissipative system level the question is one of computability
for which the turing oracles give an answer at that level we can just build up sets of
turing machines to define any computability problem. It is not till we get to the
level of the quaternion/autopoietic system that we need the Universality which
785
allows any turing machine to be read from tape and executed. These individual
turing machines simulate the nodes of the autopoietic system. They produce
patterns and contain algorithms necessary to create different kinds of orders within
the system. The execution of these are controlled by the meta-program of the
autopoietic hypercyclical ring. Autopoietic systems are made up of diverse
ordering principles that interact. Unlike the dissipative system that only has one
ordering principle the autopoietic system may contain many ordering principles.
These ordering principles inhabit the space between the two dissipative systems that
make up the autopoietic system. There is a field of asymmetries and actions that
open up from within the autopoietic system. In this field the ordering principles
appear in a constellation. They undertake actions of ordering and appear due to the
clustering of asymmetries. We can simulate them with algorithms. These
algorithms are read from the tape of the autopoietic system and executed by the
nodes. Each nodes acts as an independent agent and does different functions. It is
through their social interaction that it is decided which function to perform when.
This is generally also controlled by the hypercycle of the autopoietic ring. However
the ring is not in complete control since there is a social aspect to the interaction of
the nodes. If the autopoietic system was not a universal turing machine then it could
not perform this execution of multiple programs and thus could not display the
multiple ordering principles it needs to structure itself. What is the tape of the
autopoietic system? -- clearly its memory. What is the processing unity of the
autopoietic system? -- clearly its cognitive function. The autopoietic system must
be able to read from its memory and execute. Nodes are points of memory and
points of cognitive processing. Thus we have a distributed parallel processor which
operates under a meta-program but that meta-program allows social interaction to
ameliorate its control. Why is this? Because of Ashby’s law. The meta-program
cannot know everything so it delegates control to the nodes who react based on
context given general instructions. The control allows for the quaternions in the
neighborhood to interact and determine precise functioning of individual agents. In
this way both global and local control is blended to produce the actual action of the
autopoietic system in any given circumstance. Autopoietic systems are not
completely determined nor are they completely undetermined. They may operate in
a teleonomic environment with other autopoietic systems but individual autopoietic
systems are homeostatic. However because each node is in slightly different
context and it must operate appropriately to its context there is a fuzzification of
control by social interaction that modifies the program of the hypercycle of the
autopoietic ring. In other words if the hypercycle says do X but all the local nodes
say do Y then a global-local negotiation will occur with a weighting toward the
786
local answer. In this way the autopoietic system controls from the bottom with
guidelines from the top in conformance with Ashby’s law.
Another point to be stressed is that the autopoietic system occurs because four
illusory continuities are held in conjunction. Two pairs form dissipative systems
and all four together form the autopoietic system. The dissipative systems are like
mobius strips or Escher waterfalls and when you combine them they become a
Kleinian bottle which is an emergent whole form that is produced by merely
holding the four illusory continuities in conjunction expecting intertransformability.
Intertransformability is weakened in this conjunction of four streams of illusory
continuity by the absence of the commutative property. This causes us to have to
go through extra steps to reverse transformations. The addition of these extra steps
are seen as Actions and they occur because of asymmetries in transformations.
These discontinuities in intertransformability lead us to the properties that a
quaternion/autopoietic system has over a complex/dissipative system. There is in
such a system a blockage to intertransformability that cause us to do extra action
and creates system behavior. It also produces both perception and recognition.
What is seen by the autopoietic system is due to the production of asymmetries. It
is only if asymmetries are produced that anything can be seen. That thing to be
perceived or recognized only appears because it initiates the production of
asymmetries. But asymmetries can be handled by being transformed by the
autopoietic system itself. The main work of the autopoietic system is to maintain
itself. But it must maintain itself in an environment. Thus the perturbations of the
environment and internal perturbations are seen as asymmetries. These asymmetries
are processed by the autopoietic system itself through transformations which mark
the difference between a transformation and the path that must be executed to bring
about a reversal (due to lack of commutativity). Such a difference is continually
being produced as the internal and external asymmetries are being processed by the
system. Consider that the purpose of the autopoietic system is to maintain its own
structure as an equilibrium. Then for such a system the difference between
transforms and their reversals will be crucial and will specify the structure of the
system that must be in orbits around its structural optima. Any perturbation in one
direction must be matched by some push back from the opposite direction. So the
autopoietic system must strive to maintain dynamic balance through the exercise of
actions that are pushes back countering deformations initiated from the inside or
outside. This constant countering must be based on the distance needed to reverse
transformations given the lack of the commutative property. A perturbation occurs.
The transformation that could have caused that effect is reversed but the path of
787
reversal is longer than the path of initial deformation or transformation so the

autopoietic system cycles back toward equilibrium passing through a series of
intermediate states. The autopoietic system has a perception due to the occurrence
of the asymmetries and it has actions that are perceptible because simple reversal of
a transformation is not possible. Thus an autopoietic system perceives or
recognizes and it processes cognitively or it remembers. The difference between
these two is which dissipative system in enacted to deal with the perturbation. If the
perturbation is from the outside then the dissipative system that deals with it will
probably be perceptual/cognitive. If the perturbation is from the inside then the
dissipative system that deals with it will probably be recognition/memory. In other
words such a system is set up to remember its own structure and recognize it. To
recognize itself it needs to produce asymmetries and then process these. That
processing is called memory which manages the difference between the primal
scene of the systems structure and what is perceived to be the case. The
realignment is an automatic action in most cases when something is recognized to
be out of kilter then an automatic action is called up to rebalance things. This action
is like a program read directly from memory and executed. If a perturbation comes
from the outside then distance is necessary between the input of the asymmetries
and the calling up of the action response. This distance gives us the fundamental
difference between perception/cognition and recognition/memory. The production
of distance creates the difference between self and other. Actions are now external
not internal and effects must be sensed through outer perceptive organs. What is
interesting is that the distance that is created and projected on the world is the inner
distance that flows from the multiple asymmetries within consciousness. These are
the very asymmetries that cause memory to be dark and incomprehensible if
considered globally even though any one memory might be vivid and bright. Each
memory is stored as if on a separate disconnected spot and the network for
accessing them is heterarchical. But perception gives us the illusion that we are
looking out on a fully connected perceptual field. Cognition gives us the illusion
that there are abstract glosses that connect the endless variety of things in the
perceptual field. Perception gives us the illusion we can integrat4e any field into
gestalts or meta-gestalts of showing and hiding displays. But the field is actually a
combination of perceptual and cognitive continuity and the algebras apply to the
cognitive aspect of the field. Thus beyond the eight simultaneous continuities that
are combined by algebras the perceptual continuity is shallow. On the other hand
recognition takes each case separately and accesses memory pinpointing images
that might classify and make understandable based on experience of some
phenomena. So you see exactly what is connected in one case is disconnected in
788
the other and exactly what is clear in the one case is obscure in the other. This is
much like the difference between rules and field of automata states in the example
of cellular automata. Thus the two dissipative systems bonded together to produce
autopoietic behavior view the same field of asymmetries and counter-
transformative actions in opposite ways. One sees it as the connected field of the
observable external environment which is covered by glosses. The other sees it as
the disconnected matrix of memories that are accessed by recognitions on a case by
case basis. The entire field of memories are hidden and how recognition works is
mysterious. Sometimes it gives results that are contrary to what might be expected.
The point is that memory is not a passive receptacle of information but memory is a
way of transforming images much like cognition is a way of transforming
information through induction and deduction. Recognition also is not a
straightforward reading of memory but accesses the transformed images via its own
particular protocols that like perception can be distorted or can change the object in
the process of recognition or perception. The field of asymmetries can be viewed in
either of these ways by the two dissipative systems but that field and its associated
actions are the major emergent aspect that the autopoietic system adds over the
merely dissipative system. Through that field the autopoietic system interacts with
its environment and itself albeit in a round about and self-serving way. Out of the
midst of the autopoietic system arises the asymmetries that allow phenomena to
manifest and the actions that allow the system to maintain its own structural
equilibria.
Notice that the maintenance of equilibria by actions naturally lends itself to a

description using group structures. In fact we can go further and say that arranged
around the symmetry point of the autopoietic system are multiple thresholds of
group operations by which the autopoietic system maintains itself. The
asymmetries themselves differentiate the elements of groups and the
transformations or counter transformations form the operations on those elements.
To this we apply the concept of groups connected by higher logical typing. Thus
groups are chained where different group structures cover the same set of elements.
For instance, there are five groups of order eight or five groups of order twenty.
These different groups are at different levels of logical typing in relation to each
other. So if a change cannot be accomplished at one level of logical typing then we
pursue that change at a different level. The groups of the same order covering the
same asymmetrical elements form a ring that is a hyper-cycle with respect to the
autopoietic system in question. In the hypercycle there is a control relation between
different logical levels. So one transformation at one level may initiate an action
789
but the same transformation at another level may cause that same action to cease.
In this way the autopoietic system can control itself and establish its cycling always
back toward equilibrium given any perturbation within its scope of possible control.
Now by this we see how autopoietic systems produce their control structures. That
is by group structures linking asymmetries and actions. When these group
structures are chained to create hyper-cycles where the different groups cover the
same set of asymmetries then we have a a natural control system that will allow the
necessary changes to cycle back to balance. For instance, one group might be fine
for small perturbations but larger changes may need us to switch groups moving to
a higher or lower logical type. But since the logical types themselves form a ring
then the autopoietic system is always closed while still covering all the possible
transformations necessary to continually move back to equilibrium. These
hypercycles composed of groups are referred to as autopoietic rings. They are the
control structures of autopoietic systems and are at a different level than the nodes
of the autopoietic system itself which are made up of, or made visible by. the
asymmetries that occur in the autopoietic system by virtue of the lack of
commutative property in the interface between the two dissipative systems. The
dissipative systems alone would not have any actions to base memory or cognition
on NOR any asymmetries to base recognition or perception on. The autopoietic
system makes itself visible to itself through these asymmetries -- and concomitantly
it makes itself visible to the environment and things in the environment visible. It
appears to itself as nodes that are used to self-produce itself. These nodes are the
locuses of different organizing principles encompassed by the autopoietic system.
The nodes have differential action and the role of the hypercycles is to activate and
deactivate organizational nodes as necessary and in that way they act as organizing
or ordering principles. Many different organizing principles acting together build
and maintain the autopoietic system. . These bundles of asymmetry may be viewed
as synergetic motifs that serve to generate patterns. Nodes are clusters of
asymmetries and are seen based on their difference from other nodes that are
bundles of other asymmetries. Autopoietic theory distinguishes between structure
and organization. Structure is physical arrangement in spacetime of components
whereas organization is functional interdependence between components. We can
think of these nodes as being quaternions. This concept was first articulated by Ben
Goertzel in private correspondence. If we view nodes as quaternions then an
amazing aspect of autopoietic systems appears: their fine structure is the same as
their global structure! In other words any particular node in an autopoietic system
is nothing more than a juncture between two dissipative systems. The dissipative
systems do not just interact globally but interacts locally at every point in the
790
autopoietic system. Every node is both a point in the recognition-memory loop and
a point in the perception-cognitive loop. The dual networks are the ways that the
autopoietic system has to index into itself. From one point of view the nodes form a
rhizome and from the other viewpoint they are arborescent. If the arborescent
viewpoint is projected on agency then you have a psychological model whereas if it
is projected on functionality then you have a social model. Similarly if the
rhizomatic viewpoint is projected on functionality you have a psychological model
whereas if it is projected on agency you have a social model. The social and
psychological are two aspects of the same thing and are intimately intertwined at
each point in the autopoietic system. These internal quaternion nodes are the
embodiment of the autopoietic system as recognizing and remembering itself while
perceiving and processing information about the Other (or vice versa). These dual
loops at every point produce actions that are controlled by hypercycles of the
autopoietic ring at a meta-level that opens out within the system. The quaternion
nodes of the autopoietic system themselves interact through the next level of
conjunction at which the octave and Cayley algebras come into play. We cannot
tell whether we are looking at autopoietic systems interacting with each other or
nodes of a single autopoietic system because both appear exactly the same. Within
the autopoietic system the nodes are quaternions interacting through social
structures. Outside the autopoietic system it interacts with other autopoietic systems
via the same reflexive structures of octaves. Autopoietic systems naturally fall into
social modes of organization as do the nodes within an autopoietic system. For an
autopoietic system the inside mirrors the outside and vice versa. This is a unique
formation that can only occur in systems that take on this very special form. It is a
mirroring like that which Lacan speaks of and Baudrillard borrows to talk of social
production. In Lacan children realize themselves as themselves when they reach
the mirror stage -- i.e. when they recognize themselves in a mirror. Similarly in
social production there is a mirroring in which “the human species comes to
consciousness in the imaginary. Production, labor, value, everything through
which an objective world emerges and through which man recognizes himself
objectively -- this is the imaginary. Here man has embarked on a continual
deciphering of himself through his works, finalized by his shadow (his own end),
reflected by this operational mirror, this sort of ideal of a productivist ego.”
[Baudrillard Mirror Of Production page 19]. The social mirroring and the
psychological mirroring are themselves mirrors of each other so that we are lost in
an infinite play of images in dual mirrors. This infinite play of images occurs
within and without the autopoietic system. The images are created by the
production of asymmetries and the production are the actions that create or
791
compensate for asymmetries. But every action and every perturbation calls for
more action or engenders by feedback some new perturbation so that there is an
endless production of variety from within the autopoietic system that reflects in the
inward and outward mirroring infinitely. Since the autopoietic system is by
definition a simulation of a perpetual motion machine this endless self mirroring
and other mirroring creates a balance which is perfect between inward and outward.
Until the spell is broken this mirroring of the social in the psychological and the
psychological in the social is a built in feature of all self-producing systems.
7. Reflexive/Social Systems
In the last section we mentioned the key point which is that the autopoietic system
is made up of nodes that are quaternions and that these quaternions interact socially
via the next level of conjunction which is described by the octave hyper-hyper-
complex numbers and their Cayley algebras. Groups of autopoietic systems looked
at externally also interact at this level of complexity and with this form of
intertransformability. Thus what goes on within and outside the autopoietic system
is social and by definition reflexive. Reflexive here points to the mirroring that was
mentioned in the last section. In sociology reflexivity has a special meaning of
theories that do what they say. Many social theorists in the early seventies called
for such theories but they were very difficult if not impossible to produce. They
were theories that were self-aware and referred to themselves in a similar way to the
Cartesian idea of thought thinking itself. I call this reflexion with an “x” to
differentiate it from reflection with a “t” which means thought stopping to think
completely. Stopping thinking and thought thinking itself are two extremes of
thought. Reflexive thought is always paradoxical and leads to all kinds of
conundrums which we can only get out of by cutting the Gordian knot through
ceasing thought. Social systems are reflexive because in a social system as G.H.
Mead and other symbolic interactionists have pointed out one reflects the other in
our actions by taking account in advance his reactions to out proposed actions. In
symbolic interaction one self is formed by its reflection in all the other selves of the
society. Thus society is really only the infinite play of mirroring between selves.
Likewise within the self there is only an infinite mirroring were what we mistake
for ourselves is merely the sum of our interactions past and present with others.
The reflexive is an illusion created as an excess by ideation. Both cognition and
memory create glosses. These glosses or abstractions are the product by which
ideation handles the endless variety of asymmetries produced by the autopoietic
system. These glosses are the forms that appear in the dual mirroring of inside and
792
outside. They cover over and hide endless variations in content. They are the means
by which the autopoietic system recognizes itself as itself. Without the glosses it
would lose itself completely in the sea of endless variation. This means that
autopoietic system must be able to recognize kind or essences and use them to
connect between ideas and the noematic nuclei of phenomena. It is essences that
appear out of the mirroring of inside and outside. They are the points of stability in
the dual mirroring. If there were no essences then we would be completely lost in
the sea of variation. But essences allow us to tell different kinds from each other
and recognize similar kinds. Perceptions work with differences between kinds and
recognition with similarities between kinds. Cognition creates similarities between
different kinds building up abstractions to higher and higher levels. Memory
produces differences between the same kinds that is why you can have the different
memories of the same thing in different circumstances. Memory uses differences to
store the context for a particular kind. Once recognition identifies the kind then
memory shows all the different contexts it can operate within.
The octave holds eight streams of illusory continuity in conjunction

simultaneously. It does this by converting the streams in pairs into dissipative
systems and converting dissipative systems into autopoietic systems and producing
a social matrix for the autopoietic systems. In the social matrix the autopoietic
systems mirror each other. They establish a protocol which creates a symbolic
exchange. At this level we have turing machines communicating across their
mutually held tapes. Mutually held tapes are group memory. They also become
communications channels between turing machines. Composed turing machines
glued together by their tapes in this fashion become large turing machines. Thus
the social milieu is merely a large universal turing machine with the behaviors of
individuals being the algorithms that are executed. There is no difference between
the inside of an autopoietic system and the clustering of many autopoietic systems
together. In both cases the interaction of quaternions occurs via the octave level
conjunction. This is like a meta-Klinean bottle composed of the two autopoietic
Klinean bottles to create a single higher dimensional object. It is a single whole
composed additively. We can think of these systems like perfect numbers which
are produced by adding all their parts: 1+2+3=6 or 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28. Similarly
social systems are produced additively by holding in conjunction eight streams of
illusory continuity. When you do this these streams automatically form four
dissipative systems, two autopoietic system and one reflexive/social system. At
each level there is some emergent phenomena that unfolds from the higher level
conjunction.
793
The emergent phenomena that appears at the octave or social level is related to the
property of intertransformabilty that fails at this level. The property that fails is
associativeness: (AB)C = A(BC). What is fascinating is that it is the failure of the
associative property in Cayley algebras that produces social phenomena. When the
associative property fails we suddenly are hyper-aware of associations and this is
what creates social phenomena. Social phenomena are asymmetries in associations
of nodes or autopoietic systems. When the associative property holds we do not
notice these phenomena. They only come to consciousness when we cannot count
on associations being reversible. Only asymmetries are visible and it is the
asymmetries in the social fabric that become visible at the level of dissipative
autopoietic reflexive systems. We can no longer be certain that groupings are
interchangeable so that different groupings may produce different results. These
differences between groupings is what makes the social visible for the first time
only at this level of complexity.
Another point worth mentioning is that both autopoietic systems produce

asymmetries and actions out of themselves. These asymmetries and actions may
overlap and this is what we call the social world. The shared projection space of
visibility is what allows autopoietic systems in the social fabric to see each other
and to see themselves as a group related to other groups. There are shared glosses
and shared actions. As Durkheim said Kant’s Categories (the ultimate abstractions)
are socially produced. In this way it is autopoietic systems that get their ways of
looking at the world from the social system not vice versa. Perception is first social
perception. Cognition is first social cognition using socially constructed typologies.
Recognition is first social recognition. Memory is first social memory. Thus the
whole hierarchy of specialized systems is turned upside down. The autopoietic
emerges out of the social. The dissipative emerges out of the autopoietic. The
general systems arise out of the dissipative. The whole hierarchy must be inverted
because it is the social that projects the world within which all the other kinds of
systems appear. This is the paradox of the Anthropomorphic principle. We must be
here for it to be seen therefore we condition everything we see from the building
blocks of the universe through all the emergent levels up to and including ourselves.
Autopoietic Sociology is the most general science including within itself all other
sciences of phenomena that appear within the socially constructed world.
Another point is the interaction between the perceptual-cognitive loop and the
recognition-memory loop. We have seen that one appears as the trough for the
other converted to the dynamic of solitons. Thus one is frozen as a platform for
794
viewing the dynamic of the other or vice versa. We can go on to say that the
relation between these two modes between solitons is the instantaton. In other
words when an asymmetry appears in one soliton formation that comes from the
other soliton formation it pops into existence like an instantaton. So asymmetries
that appear out of the unconscious and must be orthogonal just pop into existence
from the point of view of the perceptual cognitive loop. Likewise traumatic events
are converted into instantatons that intrude into the recognition-memory loop. This
recognition-memory loop plays tapes of past traumatic sequences over and over and
can only be cured by metaphor work where the traumatic contents are ejected from
the recognition-memory loop. Similarly besides ejection of foreign contents that
imbalance the memory-recognition loop there is the opposite which is injection of
content. For more on this see The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond
The Void which explores the Therapy of David Grove and the use of Clean
language to free the Recognition-Memory loop of foreign metaphors. When those
traumatic memories intrude on the perceptual-cognitive loop it is as movies of the
traumatic event which we play over and over for ourselves. Steven Briggs, a
practitioner in Grove Hypnotherapy, says that the basis of Grove’s technique is
“accessing.” We have called accessing here recognition. In other words there are
two ways to get to memory. One way is via indexes into memories that use the
cognitive resources. The other way to get to memories is to perform direct
accessing of contents. In the later instance the conscious mind does not control
what is seen. One has in effect stopped the perceptual-cognitive loop and given
over to the dynamics of the recognition(accessing)-memory loop. Both loops when
out of balance intrude on each other. There is unconscious material that appears in
consciousness and is the ultimate basis for desiring machines and there is the
movies from the unconscious that replay traumatic scenes sometimes distorted and
warped into unrecognizable images. On the other hand traumas within the
perceptual cognitive loop cause insertions of traumatic materials within memory so
that every recognition falls into the same warped pattern and all memories recall the
trauma in one way or another. This dynamic between the two loops that appear in
our psychology as the right brain and left brain dichotomy have a complex
interaction that needs more study. However, having the dual mobius strip model in
which dynamics is modeled by turning one mobius strip into a soliton formation
and that understands shifting between modes in terms of instantatons allows us to
understand the relation between balance and imbalance and how the two mobius
formations can effect each other by producing discontinuities in each other.
The asymmetries that appear within the socially shared space of perception-
795
cognition or recognition-memory allow us to first see each other and then later other
things within the world. The actions that we share are social actions instead of
individual actions. Just as the two dissipative systems differentiated themselves
while remaining balanced in every octave conjunction the two autopoietic systems
will differentiate. The octave conjunction can be thought of as a marriage.
Marriage is the root of all society. In every society the male and female roles
differentiate. This is because that they need to be different in order to recognize
each other and to perceive each other and to think about each other and to remember
each other. In other words marriage is a fundamental social bond that posits
harmonious social relations between different kinds of the same kind.
Notice that at the autopoietic level we were saying that we needed essence
perception of kinds to be able to find out way within the mirroring of reflexivity.
Here we see that kinds of the same kind are needed at the level of the social in order
to create harmony. That harmony is the interaction of two perpetual motion
machines. It is not a maintenance of homeostasis of structure. It is instead
heterodynamic because it is a continually changing balance between partners that
are kinds of a kind like male and female. It is from this root harmony that the world
is projected ecstatically. At the heart of the world is a home and the love between
partners. The social phenomenology of love is needed to understand this
experience. So much existential phenomenology concentrates on angst and the
experience of desolation of the individual alone. This is because our culture has
gone to extremes to separate individuals and create the illusory ideal of romantic
love. When we speak of the phenomenology of love we do not mean romantic love
that is self destroying. Instead we speak of the love that arises out of marriage that
is sobered by the actual living with another human being instead of the attempt to
obtain an unobtainable ideal. This more sober and realistic love for an actual human
being that comes with knowing them for some long period of time is neglected in
our culture despite its roots in our tradition like the love of Odysseus for Penelope.
Normally this kind of love is ignored because it is not as exciting as adultery or the
romantic love for the absent perfect one. However, all the variations are based on
normal everyday marriages that have been the heart of every civilization since the
beginning of time. We do not yet have a phenomenology of normal marriage and
its sober tolerant love but we need it in order to really understand the human
predicament. Because it is those normal marriages and the love that grows within
them that are the root of the social fabric. In Greek the household is called the
oikos. There is a constant tension between the household and the city that contains
all the households. The city in Plato’s Laws is the very image of the Autopoietic
796
system. Within the city are the nodes of the oikos. Here we see how each node
within the autopoietic system is really a social autopoietic system. Each household
is a social conjunction between two people in the social contract of marriage. They
set up the full social fabric between them that encompasses their household. The
city is made up of all these social nodes and forms a social autopoietic system. But
since there is no difference between the outside and inside -- since both are social
then we see that each household is really an autopoietic system that encompasses all
the individuals in it as nodes. We can instead see each individual as dissipative
systems within the autopoietic system. Similarly we can see each city as a
dissipative system within the cluster of all the neighboring cities. Each city has its
ordering principle and attempts to impose it on the other cities. Similarly within the
household there is the dissipative system of the women’s world in relation to the
dissipative system of the men’s world. Culturally in Ancient Greece and many
other cultures these were very different worlds isolated in many ways from each
other. The union of marriage bridged these two worlds. The treaties between cities
bridged the gulf of competition between cities. So that we see that it is possible to
take different viewpoints and see the marriage within the household as social
contract from one point of view and as dissipative orders opposed to other orders
form another point of view. Between these to extremes there is the autopoietic
system itself that is the point of mirroring which is utterly social inside and out.
Thus what happens within the household is the mirror of what happens inside the
city and vice versa. What happens inside the individual is the mirror of what
happens in their social milieu. Multiple levels of mirroring which are resolved by
the union of kinds of a kind. The individual is born out of marriage and grows up in
the household before entering the life of the city. The household is born out of the
marriage of the owners of the household which is a social contract between other
households setting up their children to inherit or begin their own households. The
city is nothing but the sum total of its households that may have migrated from
other cities. Plato says the best city wall is made up of the walls of the households
that make it up. This is exactly the form of the autopoietic ring.
The essence of the social is emergence. Emergence is the arising of the totally
new. This is the driver for the heterodynamic nature of the reflexive that projects
the world ecstatically. It is G.H. Mead that realized that the social must be
emergent. This is the interesting thing about the social. It only remains the same by
constantly changing and that change can be either subtle and continuous or dramatic
and revolutionary. That such a reflexive system will change is the only constant.
The changes themselves will be unpredictable both in their magnitude and duration.
797
But in such a system change is constantly changing so that the structure being held
homeostatically constant is continually changing. Each autopoietic system is
holding on to its structure but they are constantly engaged in a meta-structure that is
heterodynamic. That heterodynamic meta-structure is founded on the tendencies or
propensities of the Meta-meta-mandelbrot set. Thus there is a chaotic basis that
Deleuze and Guattari call schizophrenic. This merely refers to the wild and endless
variety of production in such a system that never allows any time for rest from
variety production. Deleuze and Guattari posit that the individual has no reality (at
least psychologically) but that it is composed of desiring machines and embedded in
the socius. We concur to the extent that we recognize the level of desiring
machines as the nodes within an autopoietic system of the individual as organism.
That organism is trapped within the mirroring on either side of the autopoietic
system which is social in both cases. Thus the desiring machines interact at the
semiotic level as social groups using reflexive structures and also the individuals in
our lifeworlds also interact socially using reflexive structures. This dual sociality of
desiring machines and autopoietic systems is called the socius. The socius is
heterodynamic and continually emerging projecting the world as full of emergent
things. Among those things are the social entities from which unfold all other
objects. The word Thing originally meant a kind of social gathering and later came
to mean any entity. Similarly the Social Thing antedates all other things in the
world which are all socially constructed out of the fundamental social material
which is propensities or tendencies that lie at the schizoid basis of all human groups
and is the substance out of which the world is produced. Human groups produce
endless variety in their worlds which are continuously changing either in small
ways or big ways and it is these changes by epochs, epistemes, paradigms, theories,
facts etc. that is the essence of the human being within the western worldview. The
fabric is social inside or outside and the social fabric is founded in the posibillity of
the harmony of marriage. That harmony is disrupted by a myriad forces within our
projected world but the human marriage is the social contract upon which the world
is founded which posits the possibility of harmony and which makes the world
something other than the nihilistic war of the all against the all including war
against oneself. Many times the world degenerates to something like that state. But
within the madness there are always pockets of harmony which could not exist if
harmony was not the always already lost origin of the world. Within the Indo-
european tradition that primal harmony is always sacrificed in order to create the
real world. The the ideal of harmony is approached again and again through
temporal sacrifices. The temporal sacrifices are the continual changes of epoch,
episteme, or paradigm within the world by which the original harmony is
798
approximated again and again. The social encompasses the emergent and the
harmonious in a single unity of kinds of a kind. The social is the basis of the world
which is founded on human love within marriage. Social phenomenology centering
on the phenomenology of mundane love is the human basis of autopoietic sociology
that seeks out and elucidates autopoietic systems that mirror the social internally
and externally. The other basis of autopoietic sociology is an understanding of
computational sociology which understands that human society is computable via
turing machines sharing tapes and using them as communication channels.
Distributed artificial intelligence and artificial life eco-systems address this problem
but it can only really be simulated in Artificial Intersubjectivity (A-IS) which is
based on an understanding of how autopoietic systems as universal turing machines
set up symbolic exchange to produce social harmony and how these systems
automatically produce emergent effects.
When we look at the algebras we find that what is left in tact after the stripping
away of properties (commutative and associative) we have just gone through as we
ascended to the social level are the transitive [A=C A=B=C], reflexive [A=A],
symmetry [A=B, B=A], and identity [A+0=A or A*1=A or A-A=0 or A*1/A=1]
properties. These properties are the core of all algebras. The transitive property
basically says that there are multiple paths to the same place within the set of
elements covered by the algebra. The reflexive property says that you can verify
that something is itself. This is to say it can be recognized as itself at any time. The
symmetry property gives us equality itself. The identities relate to how operations
take something and its opposite and produce the identity element or how the
identity element and another element always give you the other element. Normal
algebras are rings with two operations that both have different identities. These
properties are enough to define groups (one operation) or rings (two operations).
Groups do not have to display associative and commutative properties. We can use
these properties to define our systemic structure. Any system needs multiple paths
to the same places or state that are equivalent. It is the transitive property that
allows us to get around the system and what is outside the system is defined as
intransitive due to the systems boundary. If we only have transitiveness then we
have a system that can be described with mathematical category theory. Adding
reflexivity we have a system wherein each element can be recognized as itself at
any moment. This depends on truth as verification which will be called upon to
make sure A=A at any given point in time. This makes the system definite and
determinate instead of fuzzy and indeterminate. Reflexivity establishes the truth
value of any given system. Following August Stern and his matrix logic we can
799
identify four truth values true=1, false=0, neither true nor false= -1, and both true
and false = 2. These have been the truth values of Indian logic from time
immemorial. Our tradition has always followed Aristotle in positing excluded
middle in order to make all things definite and determinate. However, this causes
logic to have fundamental problems when applied to phenomena in the world. So
reflexivity is not a simple straight forward concept but has complexity of its own
implicit in the statement that A=A. We must verify that A does indeed equal A.
And that verification can come up with the wrong answer and it brings us face to
face with the indeterminate nature of existence when we cannot decide if A=A or
not. If A does not equal A then that may be because it is ambiguous in which case it
is both true or false or because it is the wrong question. Perhaps A does not exist in
the system any more in which case it is impossible to verify so it is neither itself nor
not itself. This point of reflexivity that calls us to consider the logical possibilities
can be associated with what has been called the singularity within the system that is
the point of the introduction of order. It is order that makes everything what it is so
it can be verified to be itself and not something else. So ordering is assumed to be
the basis on which verification is carried out. Notice that the singularity is like a
reflexive point within the system. This to say that order is created by the production
of multiple copies of the same pattern emanating from the singularity. We can see
the A=A in a different light where the “=” is seen as the singularity from which two
elements of the same kind are emanating. At such a point we can verify that they
are indeed two identical patterns and get answers in the range from 2 to -1. Thus it
is possible to view reflexivity as the principle means of order production where a
pattern is reflected in multiple directions out of the singularity were order is inserted
in the dissipative system.
Symmetry [A=B, B=A] is also important. With this property balance is added to
the algebraic system. Symmetry underpins both reflexivity and identity.
Reflexivity knows itself as itself because symmetry of equality is posited. Identity
allows duals to be distinguished and the identity point to become visible because
symmetry is posited first limiting the significance of equality. Only later do
inequalities arise to produce constraint based systems that break the symmetry law.
We can think of reflexivity and identity as symmetry preserving properties but the
difference between them is a symmetry breaking. Thus the algebraic properties
posit symmetry and preserve it but find a way to differentiate reflexivity and
identity which breaks a symmetry within the algebraic system. Only a system with
a single element can be both reflexive and identical at the same time.
800
Now let us consider identity. Whether we are talking about a ring or group identity
occurs when there are elements which do mirroring. Such elements produce
opposites within the system that are duals across the mirroring. If these opposites
are brought together they equal the mirror point. Similarly if the mirror element
and any other element is combined then the other element is the result. We can see
that the identity point is the point of symmetry for dualities within the system. We
have already noted that the symmetry point within a system which projects duality
on all the elements of the system and is locatable within the system as one of its
elements is necessary and implicit within the dissipative system. This symmetry
point or identity element is the center form mirroring within the system. Mirroring
is necessary if any kind of intertransformability is to occur with the system.
Intertransformability is the heart of all algebraic processes. Reflexivity creates
discrete elements and identity allows the minimal transformations of something into
the identity element via its opposite or of something into itself via the identity
element. Groups will include many other kinds of transformability which allows
certain elements to combine with other elements to produce still other elements.
But these transformations take place in a field of duals which are organized around
the symmetry element. Rings supply two operations instead of just one as in the
case of groups. Of course there is no limit on the number of possible operations.
Operations normally have opposites as well like +&- or *&/. A ring of four
operations appears to be the lowest threshold of complete intertransformability.
The mirroring around the identity elements within the system is what provides the
basis of this intertransformability allowing things to turn into their opposites and
back again around the centers of identity.
All dissipative systems have these properties of reflexivity and identity as their
epicenters. These epicenters bring into play logic and algebra. Logic comes when
we attempt to verify reflexivities and algebras come about when we intertransform
elements in a field of dualities around a symmetry or identity point. What is
interesting is that Godel’s proof involves exactly these two elements. What he calls
“arithmetic” is really the combination of logic and algebra. When you combine
logic and algebra after a certain threshold of complexity you create a situation in
which verification of the system itself becomes impossible. Thus no system can be
proved based completely on its own axioms. In such systems there are always
unprovable assertions that are undecidable. Thus we see that when we speak of the
dissipative system as having two epicenters (reflexivity and identity) we are
bringing into play the proof of Godel that makes such a system open and
undecidable. It cannot be closed off completely by basing it on its axioms. And of
801
course there is a relation between undecidability and uncomputability. So such a

system must have within it undecidable and uncomputable moments. It is necessary
to find these by trial and error within the system. That means that the ordering of a
dissipative system is never complete. It cannot be completely determined by its
axioms or ordering principles but there is always a trial and error ad hoc
determination of specific cases that are theoretically undecidable and there are
always points within the system that are singularities which are non-computable
and need to be approximated by heuristic methods. This is a fundamental limit to
all our formal systems. We develop structural systems in order to explain these
gaps that necessarily appear in any in any even simple combination of
intertransformable elements and their associated logics. The systems itself is
delimited by nontransitivity of the boundary. Within the system the elements must
be transitive so that multiple pathways result in attaining the same end. Where
transitivity breaks down then on has reached the boundary of the system.
We will call these three properties (reflexivity=truth), (identity=identity), and

(nontransitivity=reality) the fundamental basis for modeling any dissipative system.
It turns out that these properties when equated to truth, identity, and reality have an
ontological significance. Truth, identity and reality are the three sub-concepts of
the overarching concept of Being. Symmetry can be seen as representing the
overarching concept of Being itself. Being is a single kind that covers all things,
entities, objects, relationships, meanings etc. Traditionally it is dissected into three
sub-concepts which give force to the overarching concept of Being. Reality is the
dissonance between our concepts and our perceptions or between or recognitions
and our understandings of memories. Reality is the place where our consciousness
encounters the world where things are not as we would wish them to be. As we are
ordering our existence reality is where our ordering encounters and perhaps
conflicts with the orderings of others. Truth is the comparison of statements to
states of affairs. But this comparison which allows verification of statements
presupposes the appearance of language. Language is the thing that allows us to
order ourselves and the world. No one has adequately explained why language
exists within our consciousness and within the social lifeworld. Language is taken
for granted without being questioned. We explain it by the fact that consciousness
or the social lifeworld are both dissipative systems. Such systems require ordering
from nowhere. Language for human beings is the way ordering from nowhere
manifests to us within our ecstatic projection of the world. On the level of desiring
machines this ordering from nowhere appears as semiotics (the appearance of
signs). On the level of the individual this ordering from nowhere appears as
802
thoughts in our heads. On the level of the social this ordering from nowhere
appears as language. It is necessary for ordering from nowhere to exist if we are
dissipative systems at all these levels. This reinforces the point made by Heidegger
that language is foreign to us and “It speaks” beneath our chatter. We assume that
the two epicenters of the ellipse of consciousness are the same. We assume that we
are identical to our self-talk. However reflexivity and identity are not the same.
Reflexivity indicates the emergence within consciousness (individual or social) of
an ordering principle from nowhere called Language. Earlier peoples like the
ancient Greeks did not identify the languaging in their heads with themselves. They
recognized it as an awesome foreign intrusion that they identified with their diamon
(an inner voice separate from themselves). In modern times, except for a few
philosophers like Heidegger, we have made the mistake of thinking that those
voices are our own. We have seen reflexivity as being the same as identity making
the ellipse of consciousness into a circle as Jahn and Dunne have done in The
Margins of Reality where they present a quantum theory of consciousness..
Identity is something very different from reflexivity. We identify it with what is

normally called the unconscious. We follow Matte Blanco in defining the
unconscious as everything that is symmetrical. In this case we mean symmetrical
around the identity axis of the system. We do not see what is symmetrical. Groups
are entities that you can do an operation on to bring the entity back into congruence
with itself so that if you only saw the entity before and after you would not know it
had changed. All the symmetries within consciousness hide those symmetrical
contents from us. We can only see the asymmetrical. The identity point is the axis
around all the symmetries of the unconscious revolve. Thus we see the symmetry
propoerty defines what is unconscious within the system. We experience this as the
center of our self, the source of our “identity.” Since speech or thought are
asymmetries they cannot be the same as the identity of the individual. Another
important point is that which Deleuze and Guattari mention which is that for some
content of consciousness to be associated with the unconscious that it must be
orthogonal to all other such contents. If there is any relation with something else
then the contents is not related to the unconscious but to consciousness. The
orthogonality of contents related to the unconscious is the test we must perform to
know if we are dealing with something from the unconscious. For us to see those
contents means that the symmetry of the unconscious has become broken and those
unconscious contents are what is revealed by the asymmetry. If the symmetry had
not been broken we would never have seen them as we cannot see anything from
the unconscious that is held in the embrace of symmetry. Desiring machines that
803
make up the individual are all orthogonal as nodes of the autopoietic system.
Orthogonality ensures non-interference between the operation of the nodes of the
autopoietic system. These nodes array themselves around the axis of symmetry and
interact to produce the workings of the autopoietic machine. Each part is separate
and distinct with its own unique action as an ordering principle and acts together
with the other ordering principles to produce the autopoietic system out of itself.
What is interesting is that the asymmetries and actions of the autopoietic system are
arrayed around the identity point of that system. These arrays of nodes,
asymmetries, actions, and groups form patterns at different thresholds of
complexity. These thresholds of complexity include the dissipative, autopoietic and
reflexive levels of special systems. Notice that at all three levels identity, truth and
reality play an important part. However the different levels have different emphasis
on these three constituents. For instance at the dissipative level identity is de-
emphasized and truth and reality are emphasized. At the autopoietic level identity of
self with self and the boundary in reality are emphasized. At the reflexive level
reflexivity and identity are emphasized. Thus at each level is a pair of these
concepts that receive the most attention and one concept plays a lesser role. For the
reflexive system the boundary is not very important. For the autopoietic system
reflexivity is de-emphasized. For the dissipative system it is the identity element
that is de-emphasized.
Of course at the real and complex levels both the associative and commutative
properties still hold as well as these core properties that define the ellipse of the
dissipative system. Then at the level of the quaternion autopoietic system the
commutative property falls out. At the level of the octave social system the
associative property falls out. In both cases a property failing introduces
asymmetries into the system. When we move up to higher levels that we might
imagine, but do not actually exist mathematically, we do not even have
transitiveness so there are no algebras at all beyond the octave. Without
transitiveness there is no system and reflexivity and identity alone are not enough
without a field of transitive elements across which they operate.
The question that is hardly ever asked is why do we want intertransformability in

the first place. This is the way we project a continuous world within which we can
get our bearings and within which we can transform other things at will. Continuity
and the intertransormability that uses it is a basic component of our will to power.
804
General systems theory such as the one developed by George Klir seeks to
recognize systems as objects. The object is looked at as a source of attributes that
are quantified by attaching variables to phenomena. Some of these variables are
designated as backgrounds and others are foreground measurable properties. Thus
the source system become a data image. Then we look at the question of how to
simulate that data we are observing and we begin to define generative systems.
Such generative systems will execute algorithms to produce the correct data streams
to emulate the system. Once we have achieved fidelity at generating the right data
streams we assume that we have an accurate simulation of the system producing the
same patterns as it would produce. This fidelity is achieved by increasing meta-
levels of structure and modeling. Structure refers to the production of patterns and
modeling refers to temporal changes in patterning. If we assume that any given
variable can be ordered at any level in the lattice of methodological distinctions (no
order, partial order, partial order with distance, linear order without distance, or
fully ordered) then general systems theory should be able to simulate any system at
any level of ordering. This simulation assumes that the system is computable. If
the system is not computable then such a simulation will abstract from and
approximate the object system. This is the general systems theory which based on
this generic simulation structure can calculate all possible systems architectures.
We can start from any given system and attempt to work out its generic systems
architecture or we can start from a specific system architecture and look for actual
systems that embody it. Thus general systems theory gives us a basic mechanism
for recognizing order producing systems and for simulating them at any level of
possible order from no order to fully ordered. Such systems do not make any
assumptions how many ordering principles are at work in the object system. The
object system once demarcated is modeled regardless how many different ordering
principles are at work. But not making any assumptions really amounts to
assuming that the object system has a single ordering principle. Since the whole
point of structural and modeling meta-levels is to approximate the ordering
principle of a system and then generate that behavior like the behavior of that
ordering principle what general systems theory really does is focus on objects with
a single ordering principle. It projects that single ordering principle if it does not
exist. It is important to realize that this view of systems as objects is a reduction of
what a system really is. A system is a gestalt not an object. This is to say that a
system is a showing and hiding pattern that appears to us within our perception.
Some times there are hidden aspects of systems that we need to project cognitively
in order to explain everything that we see and to distinguish the things that are
really there from the artifacts of our perception. Structural models assume that
805
objects or forms are made up of primitives that have structural relations to each
other. These contents are manipulated by structural rules to produce simulations of
the forms we see. These structural rules are contained in the structures and models
of general systems theory. Structural systems operate in time unlike formal models.
Structural models do not prove anything but only explain. So structural models are
significantly weaker than formal models but have aspects dealing with
discontinuities and time that formal models cannot approximate. We can think of
structural models as formal models dealing with the content of forms instead of the
forms themselves. Structural models are really meta-formal models of content. In
such models it is important to have intertransformability between forms. In fact
positing the field of content and then showing the transformations that take us
across the discontinuities between forms is exactly what intertransformability
accomplishes. Intertransformability allows us to bridge the gap from one form to
another. We can see it this way. Numbers are created according to the formal
system of algebra. But specific sequences of numbers are created by a structural
system operating on that formal system to give specific sequence of numbers over
time. Thorough the generation of the sequences of numbers in variables we are
simulating the system or we could just be observing these sequences of numbers in
the source system. Either way we are bounded by the form of numbers to
producing numbers in a certain way that form streams through variables that in a
simulation create illusory continuities that emulate the action of the system itself
seen from a quantitative point of view.
So intertransformability is our means of simulating systems from a quantitative

viewpoint. This of course is a reduction of all the variety that occurs in the real
system to just a series of numbers. But once we have decided to make this
reduction then we can be sure that we will only have numbers and that numbers
when manipulated will only yield other numbers within our simulation or
observations. In fact physics and mathematics both find that numbers that are
intertransformable have an amazing ability to simulate the external world
accurately in many of its fundamental aspects. Our advanced structural science is a
proof of this. So intertransformability serves us well as it gives us a closed system
of quantity within which any number can become any other number by the
appropriate transformations and in this way we simulate or measure the quantitative
aspects of our world sometimes to a high degree of accuracy.
But what about quality? Should we not have an intertransformable system of

quality to match that of quantity? Why do we neglect quality when we over
806
emphasize quantity? This is a cultural bias. There is however no reason not to have
intertransformable systems of quality which are equally as complex and accurate as
the systems we have for quantity. In fact there is a direct relation between systems
of quantity and systems of quality. Systems of quantity demark the elements of a
system and their movements in spacetime. Systems of quality summarize the states
of these elements or groups of them and their state changes over time. The
quantitatively defined system has a certain number of elements and the system is
defined by the relations between these elements. Each element has measurable
attributes that can be seen as a source system in Klir’s terminology. There are N^2
relations between the elements of a system or A^2 relations between all the
attributes of these elements. We can portray these relations with a Lano N^2 chart.
On the other hand there are 2^N different overlappings between elements in a
system or 2^A different overlappings between attributes. One can use a Venn
diagram to view these different overlappings. Notice that Venn diagrams are also
used to portray logical situations. So Venn diagrams are related to the reflexive
property of systems and Lano charts are related to the identity property of systems.
One displays overlappings of entities or attributes while the other displays the
relations between entities or attributes within a system.
One of the major questions I have had and have attempted to research over the
years is the relation between quality and quantity. Recently I realized that the
difference between them are implied in this difference between 2^N and N^2.
Qualities are merely the overlappings of things within a system. It is quantity that
defines and delimits the things and shows how they interact in a non-overlapping
mode. However, if we ask what quality is then we discover that the number of
qualities a system can have is the number of overlappings of its things or the
attributes of those things. The overlappings are what separate the things from the
whole of the system of which they are a part. Thus by definition all the qualities a
system can take on are merely the number of possible overlappings between the
things and attributes of a system. We can generate a picture of the qualities of a
system by creating 2^N fuzzy combinations of entities or 2^A fuzzy overlappings
of attributes. Such a system is perfectly intertransformable if we model it on the I
Ching of the Chinese. In such a system each qualitative state has N or A lines that
are either whole or broken signifying Yang and Yin. Yang and Yin are generic
opposites. In considering the system one needs to identify a series of fundamental
opposites that are permutated to arrive at a combination of opposites that describe a
particular system state. Once this production of permutating opposites is identified
then changes from one state to another is made by changing these broken or solid
807
lines by known rules. The I Ching is a ring of 64 states. Any state in the ring can be
transformed into another state in the ring through a single transformation involving
one of the other 64 states. Since the I Ching is thought to be the oldest book in the
world this model for states has been around and used for a long period of time.
Converting a system into all its possible states is no more difficult than producing
numbers from observation. However there is quite a bit more art to identifying
system states and showing how transformations from state to state are occurring.
But this answers the question of how an intertransformable system can be produced
for qualities and how many qualities are there for any given system.
The next question is what is the relation between quality and quantity. Since these
are fundamental categories appearing in Aristotle and Kant’s tables we can assume
that they are some of the most basic ideas that exist. Yet it is hard to decide whether
something should be looked at quantitatively or qualitatively. Here we borrow from
Baudrillard the concept of using the Mobius strip to define the relation between two
concepts one wishes to distinguish. Locally Quality and Quantity appear different
like the mobius strip that locally as two sides and two edges. But globally quality
and quantity are the Same just as globally the mobius strip has one side and one
edge from the global perspective. Thus everything that can be seen quantitatively
can be viewed also qualitatively and taking a global perspective there is no
difference between these two. Thus we can say that locally quality is like the wine
in the glass and quantity is like the glass that holds the wine. But globally there is
no difference between the wine and the glass. This comes to the for if we go back
to the I Ching. When considered as a ring we see that between every two
hexagrams there is a third transforming hexagram. This transforming hexagram can
be seen as the wine acting as glass to the two other hexagrams that are the endpoints
in the transformation process that are glasses acting as wine. Note that we could be
talking about any number N or A and that the number N=6 is only used here as an
example. Each level of qualitative intertransformability is independent and can be
used as a heuristic for looking at a system. Thus if a system has N elements or A
attributes then any number up to N or A can be used to create permutatable
opposites that create a field of all possible qualities for the given system.
Now once we have understood the relation of quality to quantity in terms of the
mobius strip it is possible to return to our hierarchy of specialized systems and
general systems theory. General systems theory deals with gestalts which appear in
perception or cognition or both (or which are recognized or remembered). Within
these gestalts we recognize or perceive entities and their attributes. We can produce
808
an intertransformable field of quality or a separate field of quantity in order to

explore and simulate these systems. Whether we view them qualitatively or
quantitatively is left to us. But which ever one we chose we are going to have a
problem with respect to the other. If we measure everything then its qualitative
aspect will become problematic and undecidable. If we look at qualitative states
then the quantitative aspects will become problematic. There is a wicked trade-off
between these two in most cases. Since our culture is oriented toward quantity this
wicked trade-off occurs in most cases on the side of quality. The best procedure
would be to attempt to observe both and then one can see more of the phenomena.
However, like the indeterminateness of the light slit experiment so too these two
ways of looking at the world are probably incommensurate. It is really a repetition
at a higher level of the particle and wave undecidability. The overlappings are like
waves and sees the system as a big interference pattern. The quantitative way sees
relationships between entities that are like particles. So if we apply the dictum that
the Copenhagen position is untrue and there is no cutoff between macro and micro
then we will see that Quantum Mechanics applies to the macro-world as well as the
micro and the indeterminateness between quality and quantity is an extension of the
wave/particle duality. We call the actual phenomena that is being observed a
wavicle (lave) or eventity. Everything in existence is undecided between whether it
is an expression of quality or quantity. It resolves to one or the other when
measured. But this is only to say we decided to look at it in terms of quality or
quantity. Thus the observer become intertwined with the system under observation.
What is said here about quality and quantity is similar for other fundamental
distinctions we make within the world. All of them have this mobius strip local/
global difference which makes it impossible to discreetly cut up existence one way.
Instead there are multiple interfering ways of cutting up existence. Different people
will see different systems gestalts of the same object. They will identify the entities
within that system differently and will single out different attributes to observe.
Even if they could agree upon what to observe they would interpret the results
differently. This is part of the variety production of the human being and as science
has shown it is very difficult to get confirming evidence for ones interpretation of
phenomena. However, science exists because it is sometimes possible by round
about means. Baudrillard shows how the same undecidability applies to other
distinctions such as concrete/abstract, social/technical and use/exchange value. We
could add to this list an indeterminate number of other undecidable distinctions.
So general systems theory and even the whole of science suffers from this basic
809
problem of undecidability between quality and quantity and other fundamental

distinctions. Our cultural bias is to consider quantity and forget quality taking this
obsession to unfortunate extremes. Other societies have other biases. For instance
the Chinese took the view of the world as qualities to an extreme in the other
direction. We would prefer to use both of these ways of looking at the world
together and learn to live with and recognize the undecidability that they entail
rather than ignoring it until we reap all the negative consequences of over emphasis
of one or the other approach to things.
Now we have posited that any system may be viewed as a gestalt either
qualitatively or quantitatively. Now let us consider the special systems that we
have introduced above. What we notice about the dissipative system is that it is a
mobius strip itself of flowing energy. When we approach it both qualitatively and
quantitatively we get a different view. We know that our fundamental distinctions
we are making are also like a mobius strip. Therefore the thing we are looking at
(the dissipative system) and our apparatus for looking at it form an autopoietic
system. Suddenly we can see that there is a congruence between our undecidability
and this special kind of system in the world. This makes us suspect
anthropomorphism is at work. However it also explains the closure of our system
of thought and how it functions in a paradigm only seeing what it expects. Because
our way of looking at the world has a special relation to the this kind of system in
the world we would expect to see dissipative systems everywhere and for those
systems to pop out at us. In fact order generating systems form very good gestalts
for us as human beings, better gestalts that passively ordered images. But here is
another consequence. We tend to see things as order producing principles. This is
why we see systems in the first place. In fact we consider all systems to have their
own internal order producing principle until proven otherwise. So we tend to see
things as dissipative systems until we prove they are not dissipative. Once we
recognize them as dissipative then they can easily be considered qualitatively or
quantitatively and we know that globally these two seeming opposites are really the
same thing. That is why the object system remains identical to the source system in
Klir’s terms. All the concrete details that Klir is ignoring because he does not have
a system of qualitative intertransformability are assumed to be the same with what
is measured. Many times this is a false assumption and there are artifacts produced
that cause false measurement due to ignoring the qualitative aspect of eventities.
Now we have gone into detail showing how the complex numbers have a relation
to the dissipative system so that it lies at a specific quantitative threshold of
810
complexity. We can go on to speak of how the dissipative system also has a

qualitative aspect based on how many entities or attributes we identify in that
dissipative system. The system can be seen as an interference pattern of waves
instead of a set of discrete entities with mutual relationships. In the interference
pattern each possible overlapping of entities or attributes is a ground state of that
dissipative system. Since the system may have many entities we can choose any
heuristic up to the number of entities to look at the system. So we could decide that
there are two fundamental distinctions and generate a heuristic with four states
through which we understand the qualities of the system. Each distinction we make
has a built in undecidability globally and is only decidable locally in the act of
observation.
So when we talk about the dissipative system and its energy expenditure which
allows it to generate order internally and to disorder the environment then we can
see this system as a large interference pattern with multiple groundstates. In fact
what is being ordered when such a system produces order. It is the states of the
system that are being ordered. Notice the cellular automata example. Here are the
discrete cells that are quantitative defined but each of these has a state perhaps
shown by a color. It it the colors that are determined by the operation of the field of
automata. In this case the relation between quality and quantity is clear and well
preserved in the form of the cellular automata. It is the color qualities that stand for
system states that are ordered by the rules. This brings us to realize that within the
dissipative system quality and quantity have a special relation. They are balanced
and the order from nowhere orders quality. That ordering of quality moves
thorough the system as it dissipates like waves on the sea until it interacts with the
environment were it crashes like waves on the shore disordering the qualitative
states of the environment. This action produces the quantitative determination of
the dissipative system as a single thing. When we see global patterns like a
boundary or patterns within the system these may be illusory since the automata
field is just computing the states of each node’s neighbors. So the juxtaposition of
qualitative and quantitative views can be producing illusions of wholeness or
interaction that do not in fact exist. However, in the dissipative system quality and
quantity are juxtaposed in close proximity to each other so it lends itself to a
balanced quality/quantity treatment by the observer. As observers we entrain with
dissipative systems forming autopoietic systems easily. Dissipative systems offer
infinite variety of stimulation for us to project patterns on. Those patterns can be
easily seen as either qualitative or quantitative.
811
The ultimate expression of this qualitative aspect of the dissipative system is the
mandelbrot set or the Julia sets of which it is composed. Here we have infinite
differentiation into fractal patterning. Here we see the qualitative aspect of the
dissipative system in all its glory. Each quality is expressed as a color to us so we
recognize the pattern visually but each difference is really a line of flight toward
infinity that has been categorized by color coding. But we see amazingly complex
patterns here at levels of magnification that go beyond quarks if they were physical
magnifications. This qualitative field of tendencies or propensities is numerically
calculated but if all we had were numbers we would have a much more difficult
time discerning patterns. Each point in the field is independent and is calculated by
iterative multiplication. In the case of Julia sets a small complex twist is given to
the numbers when they are calculated to produce different patterns. In this
production of the fractal patterning of the complex number fields inherent
tendencies we are combining complex and quantitative views very closely in order
to visualize the inherent pattern. But because we use this technique of combining
them does not mean that they fuse. Quantity and quality remain separate here. But
by employing them together we get a better view of the intricacies of the complex
numbers and their algebras which lies at the same level of complexity as the
dissipative system. Infinite propensities forming complex patterns to any level of
magnification is about as complex as you can get. Thus our word “complex” for
referring to the number system and to things that are very complicated becomes
undecidable or allusive in the end. Complex numbers are the very epitome of
complexity and complicatedness when we focus in on the level of propensities of
each number in the field to go toward infinity at a certain velocity that can be coded
by colors.
The mandelbrot set operates at the level of the complex/dissipative systems.

Similar patterns of more complex propensities operate at the higher levels of the
quaternions and octaves. At those higher levels quality and quantity views can be
closely juxtaposed. We get our best view of these systems when we balance quality
views against quantity views. Each of these higher order system can be seen as
interfering waves instead of sets of entities and we can produce sets of states using
heuristics that give intertransformability of quality as well as quantity. However we
should not that as we lose the commutative property and the associative property
these qualitative descriptions become more powerful than the quantitative
representations of these systems. Thus we are moving in to realms where
quantitative simulation is more useful and quantitative representations are less
useful. This is why Western science is balking at entering these realms. We are just
812
starting to develop means of qualitative measurement to compete with the

traditional qualitative measurement methods. When we consider that such systems
can also be less than fully ordered we see that the development of qualitative
measures is all the more important for understanding these kinds of specialized
systems that have at their root infinite variation in the patterning of the field of
propensities.
Now let us consider again how this qualitative patterning appears at each level. At
the dissipative level it is the qualitative aspect of the field that is modified and
which makes the dissipative structures appear as illusions. In this dissipative
system we have logic and algebra combined at the right level of complexity to make
the system itself ungroundable in its own axioms. So the infinite pattern of
propensities appears within the field of undecidability of the system as a whole. It
is from the breaks in this field of undecidability that the oracular order from no
where comes into being which patterns the state of the automata. Each point in this
field has its own propensity that adds to or subtracts from what ordering comes
from on high. This interaction between patterning principle and its embodiment is
what gives the concrete dissipative system its quality. The system itself is
measured in terms of the number of nodes it encompasses and by its delineating
boundary. Energy flows and other measures are also possible.
When we move to the autopoietic level a much more complex situation holds. At
this level asymmetries and actions, nodes and hyper-cycles arise between the two
balanced dissipative systems that produce autopoiesis. The nodes may be
considered as entities to see overlapping as well as the actions. Asymmetries and
hyper-cycle changes cause discontinuities within the autopoietic system that lend
themselves to qualitative descriptions rather than quantitative description. So we
might say that a qualitative field has opened up from within the autopoietic system
separate from the fields of the conjoined dissipative systems. Between this central
field and the fields of the dissipative systems there is an interaction which causes
the fields of the dissipative systems to differentiate from each other. This is why we
can tell the perceptual-cognitive loop from the recognition-memory loop. They
form a reciprocal symbiotic relation that creates qualitative differentiation. That
differentiation revolves around the qualitative differentiation of the central field.
Notice that the central field has upper and lower levels of logical typing associated
with it. Above are the hyper-cycles giving controlling instructions. Below are the
actions that fall out of the control loop that includes hyper-cycle commands and
social interactions which together determine resultant actions. In the center
813
between these two levels are the asymmetries that allow perception or recognition
to occur and the nodes that appear within the field of asymmetries that are
orthogonally emergent from the unconscious. These are the nodes of the
autopoietic network that work together under the auspices of the hyper-cycles to
produce the system itself by maintaining its structure homeostatically through sets
of actions that cause it to revolve around its ideal structural position.
Now when we go up to the level of the octave we encounter the hypercylces as

protocols by which different autopoietic systems carry on semiotic, symbolic, or
metaphoric exchange. The asymmetries become shared social perceptions and the
actions become shared social actions. The nodes are the quaternion/autopoietic
systems within the social field. Since the inside and outside of the autopoietic
system are socially mirrored we could be talking here about the relation between
desiring machines within the autopoietic system.
8. Out of Control
Recently Kevin Kelly has written a book called Out Of Control where he suggests
nine rules by which God produces something out of nothing. We will consider
these rules as they apply to the series of special systems: dissipative, autopoietic,
and reflexive.
o distribute being
o control from the bottom up
o cultivate increasing returns
o grow by chunking
o maximize fringes
o honor your errors
o pursue no optima; have multiple goals
o seek persistent disequilibria
o change changes itself
These principles are culled from many sources and define an emerging paradigm of
complexity theory which includes chaos and fractals and other new scientific ideas
that are revolutionizing the way we look at the world.
o distribute being
Kelly says that every thing in a system creates being and they need to share and
814
distribute that being. This relates to the fact that each node in an autopoietic system
is a point of presence creating manifestation of internal and external reality for that
living system. The whole is created by the independent and concerted efforts of the
parts in their neighborhood and the whole gets its being bottom up from the nodes
and not vice versa. We can call this the constructivist premise that we must build
things and test them rather than make grand theories in order to find out what
works. Or as Deleuze and Guattari say what works is a much more important
question than what does it mean. All these special systems get their reality from
local and neighborhood interactions that have global effects and it is through the
distribution of presencing between the element of the system that the whole system
has its being.
o control from the bottom up
This is the principle that caught my eye when I perused this book. It reminded me
of the concept of Ashby’s law articulated so well by Stanford Beer in the Heart Of
Enterprise. This law is that if you want to control anything your control channel
must be as wide as the thing you are controlling is complex. If you do not have
such a channel then you are not in control. This in effect means that all control
from above is an illusion anyway. There is only control from the bottom up so you
might as well act that way rather than trying to pretend that you can control
everything top down as most organizations now pretend.
This makes the social dimension important. Where is the control deficiency made
up? It is made up by social control at the lowest level which makes people want to
conform in order to be accepted. Social (heterarchical) control plus hierarchical
control is the way systems maintain themselves. So control from the bottom up
emphasizes social control over organizational control.
o cultivate increasing returns
Increasing returns are the opposite of a dissipative system. In such a system orders
pour in. In other words instead of things flowing out to disorder the environment
there is a flow of energy inward that if managed can be used to attract more energy
from the environment. All the dissipative systems we have been discussing can be
seen as a vortex of increasing returns instead. Thus we can create a typology:
[dissipative system -- vortex of increasing returns]
Autopoietic systems may be composed of:
815
* Two dissipative systems.
The normal case discussed in this paper.

* One dissipative system and one vortex of increasing returns.
Here the dissipative system forms a physical Escher waterfall.
* Two vortexes of increasing returns.
Mutually reinforcing increasing returns.
o grow by chunking
Here we see another principle embodied by our hierarchy. We add dissipative

systems to get autopoietic systems and we add autopoietic systems to get social
systems. The chunks fit right together additively but give emergent properties of
the higher levels that fall out of the taking away of algebraic properties.
o maximize fringes
In these systems the fringes are maximized as they all have borders that are
important and which are fractally defined. However fringes also means cultivating
propensities which is also possible due to the field of mandelbrot and hyper
mandelbrot lines of flight which form the very substance of the illusory continuity
of spacetime in these systems.
o honor your errors
Errors may be creative moments not yet noticed. But this connects with what we
have been saying about singularities as sources of order from nowhere. You never
know what singularity will open up an ordering principle that will start either a
dissipative system or an vortex of increasing returns.
o pursue no optima; have multiple goals
Because of the underlying chaotic nature of these systems they have no optima.
Therefore trying to reach optima is a waste of time. Instead one should recognize
that reality is multi-faceted and that one must optimize between multiple conflicting
goals all the time. But even the distinctions by which we define goals are mobius
strips with local/global paradoxicality so we cannot define goals ideally but must
construct teleonomic responses for groups of autopoietic systems that are socially
embedded. In other words we must allow the group of autopoietic systems to
816
evolve using genetic algorithms rather than imposing ideal unobtainable goals from
the top down. This is similar to no control from above. Here instead it is no
overarching vision from above.
o seek persistent disequilibria
These systems are all about making disequilibria persistent. Dissipative systems are
by definition disequilibria. Autopoietic systems balance these to gain structural
equilibria by riding two disequilibria at the same time. Social systems are again
heterodynamic projecting a world and emergent patterns within that world. Each
stage establishes meta-disequilibria of different sorts.
o change changes itself
This principle relates to the fact that these systems are ways of riding the wave of
change and applying change to itself to obtain hyper-balances that would appear
impossible otherwise. It is not just that we do not step into the same river twice but
the very medium of the water itself is inherently unstable with its own infinite
pattern of propensities that offer myriad lines of flight at different accelerations.
Thus Kevin Kelly’s nine principles relate well to the special systems we have been
studying. Complexity theory deals with very complex systems. But here we are
dealing with certain thresholds of complexity that are mathematically defined but that
express them selves as special kinds of systems that unfold from general systems
theory. Together these systems define a new paradigm similar to that which Kelly
tries to axiomize.
9. Kinds of Being
We have defined three types of special systems that emanate from our rethinking of
general systems theory in terms of ordering. In these special systems ordering
become dynamic. In the dissipative system one order is supplanting another order
dynamically. In the autopoietic system there is a dynamical balancing of at least
two orderings. In the social system there is a reflexivity of orderings in infinite self-
reflection within and without the autopoietic system in which ordering mirrors
itself. This reflexive mirroring of orderings is the primary means of projecting the
world by the social group. The group can change the ordering to new and emergent
orderings and the social group can remain stable because at the highest level the
meta-ordering is more important that the ordering. Meta-ordering is the
817
heterodynamic ecstatic projection of the world as the realm in which all orderings
occur. The meta-ordering establishes the possibility of ordering within which all
orderings can occur. Meta-ordering is logically prior to all orderings that can be
projected or seen within the world. We call this meta-ordering “worlding”. In
another paper On The Social Construction Of Reality: Part One we constructed an
emergent ontological hierarchy with the following levels:
Structure
Form
System
Meta-system
Domain
World
Universe
Pluriverse
These are the dual of the phenomenal emergent levels:
quark
particle
atom
molecule
cell
organism
society
gaia (ecosystem).
The phenomenal emergent levels can be defined many ways but they generally
demark the basic phenomenal levels isolated by science. We can look at any of
these levels through the lenses of the ontological emergent levels. The point of the
ontological emergent levels is that we can isolate forms at any level of existence
and then produce structural explanations for them. This is how the particle and
quark levels were discovered by physics. But looking at things in terms of systems
and meta-systems is the opposite of structuralizing them. Systems are gestalts and
meta-systems are systems of gestalts that operate together to create higher level
showing and hiding relations. For instance a software program may be considered a
818
system but the operating system is the meta-system. A domain looks at many
different systems of similar type and attempts to see trends in such domains.
Domains have different ordering principles. Meta-systems express these ordering
principles by organizing showing and hiding relations of different kinds together.
Thus the domain expresses the ordering while the system expresses the showing
and hiding of a gestalt that expresses that order. The meta-system allows different
showing and hiding relations and different ordering domains to function together
without interfering. A world is the organization of all the different ordering
principles and all the possible showing and hiding relations. A meta-system will
just combine a few ordering principles with a few showing and hiding relations but
a world is the panoply of all possible ordering principles and showing and hiding
relations. The universe is an abstraction which unites all possible worldviews
usually with the aim of reducing them all to some lowest common denominator
such as physical phenomena. The pluriverse is the connection of all possible
worldviews without such a reduction.
With any showing and hiding relation there is the thing shown which assumes a
shape or form. Structuralism reduces this form to contents and formalizes the
contents to explain transformations across discontinuities from form to form.
Modern science is very good at applying structuralism to forms to get forms at
lower emergent phenomenal levels and then does the same thing to those till it
reaches phenomena such as quarks that are inseparable. When structuralists look at
the world they see projected structural distinctions out of which forms are produced.
The same structural distinction will create dualities in different forms. For instance
in America there is a structural distinction between black and white on the
socioeconomic level but that over-determines many forms that are constructed
socially within our society so that even things like the fact that salt and pepper is
found on our tables as the most probable condiments are a mirroring of that
fundamental structural distinction. Structuralists look for the fundamental
structural distinctions of content that forms are constructed from. These
distinctions whether physical or social or whatever are the fundamental matter out
of which all forms are constructed. These forms then appear in showing and hiding
relations and appear as gestalts which we call systems. Different systems may
operate in the same arena where certain rules control their interaction and these are
called meta-systems. Meta-systems combine different ordering principles and
different showing and hiding relations into a single arena. Domains identify the
scope of a specific ordering principle. Structural distinctions are manipulated
different ways by different ordering principles. The world includes all possible
819
structural distinctions, all possible forms, all possible systems, all possible meta-
systemic arenas, and all possible domains. The world is the ecstatic projection of
the heterodynamic system. All worlds together is the pluriverse and the reduction
of different worlds to some lowest common denominator is called the universe.
Dissipative autopoietic social systems ‘world’ the world as a projection of reflexive

ordering within the double mirror inside and outside the autopoietic system which
balances dissipative orderings. This worlding of the world is equivalent to the
projection of Being as differentiated instead of undifferentiated. We have already
seen that at the quaternion/autopoietic level undifferentiated Being arises between
the two dissipative systems. At the octave/reflexive level this undifferentiated
Being becomes differentiated. We noticed that kinds arose at the autopoietic level
and that the marriage of kinds of a kind occurred at the octave level. Here we see
that Being becomes differentiated by being articulated into kinds of Being. The
realm of asymmetries that opens out of the autopoietic system becomes the theater
of presencing and manifestation at the social level where discrete beings or entities
appear to the socius. The socius is the constellation of socially connected
autopoietic systems or the primitive group. Sartre calls it the fused group. Cannetti
calls it the pack. It is the primal emergent social grouping from which all other
social organizations spawn as various reifications. Sartre catalogs these in Critique
Of Dialectical Reason [Volumes I & Ii]. When Being becomes differentiated then a
spectacle appears within the world. This spectacle is composed of many different
kinds of beings. There is a difference between the entities that appear within the
spectacle and the spectacle itself. This difference is called Ontological Difference
by Heidegger. It is the difference between beings and their Presence or
Manifestation in Being. Being is the “substance” that allows the World to be
projected. It is the embodiment of the projection itself as an act of transcendence by
the social group acting together in the social construction of reality. Until recently
the “substance” of Being was considered the highest concept and to be unified
following the lead of Aristotle. In recent philosophy the unity of this overarching
concept has broken down. It has recently been realized that there are several
different kinds of Being. This articulation of the most general Kind “Being” of
which all entities are instances into different sub-kinds is referred to as the
Fragmentation of Being. The history of this phenomena has been treated in the
authors work The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The Void.
The ontological theory presented here to attempt to understand the differentiation

of Being is that the fragmentation of Being has a certain specific form of
820
differentiation into meta-levels of Being. Each kind of Being is a meta-level over

the last level of Being. There can be exactly four different kinds of Being because
these meta-levels do not go off to infinite meta-levels but hit a barrier of
unthinkablity after level four. The meta-levels of Being are as follows:
being
------------------------- ---> ontological difference
Pure Presence (Being^1)
Process Being (Being^2)
Hyper Being (Being^3)
Wild Being (Being^4)
------------------------- ---> emptiness
ABYSS infinite illusion
o Pure Presence is the projection of the spectacle of socially constructed beings

embedded in illusory continuity. Pure Presence is the static NOW point of
what the transcendental infinitesimal moment. Pure Presence is associated
with Calculus Mathematics which determine transcendental limits as ideal
points.
o Process Being is the mixture of Time with Pure Presence to produce the
temporal gestalt within the specious present. The specious present has
duration and within that duration a whole form moves from epiphany to its
vanishing point differentiating and evolving. The temporal gestalt is the
complete whole that includes the temporal unfolding of the form instead of
just the momentary snapshot of Pure Presence. Process Being is associated
with Statistical Mathematics which approximates probabilities as stochastic
constellations of actual points.
o Hyper Being is the mixture of the manifest with the unmanifest. At the level of
Hyper Being the unconscious appears as an absence which orders things.
Hyper Being is described by Derrida as DifferAnce (differing and deferring)
and by Heidegger as Being crossed out. It is the cancellation of Sartre’s
Nothingness with Process Being. In that cancellation the unmanifest
manifests by its action on the manifest usually seen in displacements and
warpages of the continuum of Pure Presence or breaks within the unfolding
of processes within Process Being. Hyper Being is associated with Fuzzy
Mathematics which hedges possibilities as potential clouds of possible
points.
821
o Wild Being is what remains after the cancellation of Process Being with
Nothingness its antinomic opposite. Wild Being was defined first by
Merleau-Ponty in The Visible And The Invisible. Wild Being exists as the
threshold of thriving or the edge of chaos where the manifest and unmanifest
intersect. Wild Being is associated with Chaotic Mathematics which
embodies propensities as tendencies of immanent points.
Beyond the meta-level of Wild Being one hits the unthinkable which can be
interpreted as equivalent to the Buddhist concept of Emptiness that is empty itself.
Emptiness is a non-experience and non-concept which can only be indicated from
Being with all its kinds as its dual. The Buddhists take this improbable position as
their basis for approaching existence instead of Being. Emptiness was realized by
the Buddha to be the absolute middle of the myriad nihilistic opposites generated by
the Hindu and thus Western tradition. Buddhism takes as its way the middle
between all the possible nihilistic opposites. In doing so it negates Being in all its
forms and at each of its meta-levels.
What exists beyond emptiness, the unthinkable limit, is illusion. There is the abyss
of infinite illusion. This is what is ultimately projected on the screen of shared
asymmetries by the group of autopoietic system. The dual mirroring produces an
illusion just like when two mirrors are stood opposite each other. The dual
mirroring goes off into the distance reproducing the patterns in the other mirror
seemingly infinitely. Here the two mirrors are the social character within the
autopoietic system and the social character outside the autopoietic system. This
dual mirroring which Baudrillard calls the mirror of production and Lacan calls the
mirror stage of the self is the ultimate projection of the social autopoietic system on
the screen of emptiness. The four sub-kinds of Being are the mechanism for
making this projection. The entities within the world appear within the web of this
illusion. We isolate those entities first as noematic nuclei within our
overdetermined glossings, then we see their kinds with eidetic intuition. The world
is a projection of the dissipative autopoietic reflexive system. It is a projection on
emptiness thorough the different kinds of Being that allow each entity to be isolated
out of the complete projection. Entities are not separate units with being in
isolation from the worlding of the world. Instead entities appear within the
dynamic gestalt of the worlding of the world and then are isolated and reified turned
into objects.
Emergent entities must pass thorough all these meta-levels of Being in the process
822
of manifesting as new things. As such they rearrange the temporal gestalts that
appear within the projection of the world. Emergent entities repattern or projection
changing interpretations of Being, epistemes, paradigms, theories or facts. All
genuine emergences pass through all these levels. This is because the social must
project the whole of the world and that whole projection occurs on the basis of the
four different kinds of Being. If an new thing does not effect all the different levels
of Being then it is not a genuine emergence. Genuine emergences are equal to the
whole world because they can change the ordering of that whole world.
Autopoietic systems have the structure of emergent entities. This is to say
Autopoietic systems are themselves equal to the whole world. Each autopoietic
system within a social group projecting a world is equivalent to the whole world.
Autopoietic systems are structured in such a way that they embody within them all
the different levels of Being at one time. All these levels are rolled up within them
so that the mechanism for producing the world is not just something that appears
outside the autopoietic system but within its deep structure as well. Each
autopoietic system is continually emerging and that is how emergence can be
introduced within the world and that world can be completely repatterned. The
autopoietic system embedded in the social meta-system always is emerging as a
heterodynamic source for the projection of the world.
We posit that the undifferentiated being produced by autopoietic systems becomes

differentiated within the social realm and that it is differentiated by the unfolding of
meta-levels of Being. This ontology is empirical and scientific because it calls for
the effort to think the fifth meta-level of Being as thinkable rather than unthinkable.
Each higher meta-level of Being we can think will expand the possibilities within
our worldview giving a new dimension to the clearing-in-Being. The clearing-in-
Being is the realm where all the asymmetries of all the independent autopoietic
systems overlap. The clearing in Being is marked by the appearance of the Positive
and Negative Fourfolds. The positive Fourfold was articulated first by Socrates as
HEAVEN, EARTH, MORTALS, and IMMORTALS. Its dual is the Negative
Fourfold articulated by Aristophanes in the play The Birds which is NIGHT,
COVERING, CHAOS and ABYSS. These two archetypal ontological formations
underlie the way our worldview sees everything. These dual Fourfold formations
appear as the basis of all our ontologies within this worldview. The articulation of
the clearing-in-Being as the place within which transcendence is projected and
immanence is realized is the heart of the social. It is the emergent aspect that
unfolds at the level of the octave/reflexive. The different kinds of Being are the
differentiation of Transcendence into meta-levels. This operation of transcendence
823
allows us to distinguish between heaven and earth and between mortals and
immortals (and similarly between animal and human). But what is normally
forgotten is the differentiation of immanence within the clearing-in-Being into the
negative fourfold, i.e. all that is obscure, indistinguishable and hidden. In our
culture the Positive Fourfold is related traditionally to Maleness and the Negative
Fourfold is related to Femaleness. Thus the differentiation of kinds of a kind that
are united in marriage at the reflexive level has a basic ontological signification that
uses the visible markers of male and female to encode ontological meanings.
Between these two Fourfolds is a basic differentiation which is invisible from the
point of view of either. We call this basic differentiation the unwarped viewpoint.
We relate it to the viewpoint of traditional Chinese Science. From that viewpoint
there is no split between Logos and Physus that occurs in the Western worldview.
That split gives rise to the duals Physus in Logos (language as independent from us
the speakers seen for instance in puns) and Logos in Physus (the ordering power of
mathematics beyond physical phenomena). In Chinese Science there is a different
picture. There is the Yang of unseen causation that strikes the Yin of created things.
In this interaction Chi (growth energy) and Li (patterning) are produced. We
understand creation through the Chinese Scientific worldview through the
interaction between various Chi (energies unfolding in creation) and Li (ethereal
ordering principles). From this viewpoint it is the interaction of Logos and Physus
with their different energies and ordering principles that cause the illusion of the
Positive and Negative Fourfolds to appear. If we do not split Logos from Physus
but see a single energy and single ordering principle that arise out of the interaction
of unseen causes and seen things then what arises is an unwarped picture of the
Clearing-in-Being. In the unwarped picture dominating transcendence disappears
and thus immanence is not generated as its opposite. It becomes merely a Clearing
and both Being and Non-Being vanish. In that clearing we can see a series of
heuristics that come from the permutation of Yin and Yang. At the first level there
is the unseen cause striking the seen things which produces unfolding growth
energy and an ordering principle. There is only one ordering principle for each
thing and thus no competition between ordering principles. At the next level of
heuristic there is four permutations of yin and yang giving: Major and Minor Yin
and Yang. These were related to the celestial lights by the Chinese:
Major Yang == Sun == Heart -> Homeopathy
Minor Yang == Stars == Acupuncture Points -> Acupuncture
Major Yin == Moon == Intellect -> Homeopathy
Minor Yin == 5 Planets == Five Hsing -> Acupuncture
824
This differentiation of the Clearing within the social/reflexive system produces two
dual therapies Acupuncture and Homeopathy. Acupuncture deals with the
Acupuncture points on the surface of the body and the Five celestial organs within
the body. Homeopathy uses tinctures of substances that cause symptoms to cure
symptoms on the level of emotions (heart) and the level of intellect. But we can
translate these two dual celestial therapies that accept and deal with unseen
causation of imbalance from the point of view of the social autopoietic system and
the clearing at its heart. The clearing of differentiation at the heart of the social
autopoietic system is supported by the Body which represents embodiment. The
therapy that would be the dual of the celestial therapies is massage. We note that
the body is divides into regions of Earth, Air, Fire and Water elements.
FIRE == Head == Eyes

AIR == Chest == Nose
WATER == Stomach == Mouth
EARTH == Bottom == Chin
There are also four basic massage motions related to the four elements:
FIRE == Finger Tips

AIR == Cupped Hands
WATER == Side of Hands in swimming motion
EARTH == Kneading motion with base heal of hand.
Thus the body is always embodied through the four elements. These four elements
interact with the five Hsing to produce twenty archetypal interactions of celestial
and terrestrial. The Five Hsing is the very image of a hyercyclical Autopoietic
Ring. The Five Hsing have production and control sequences which allow it to start
and stop the twenty basic interactions. These interactions produce flowing energy
that moves through the Acupuncture points. The energy flows were traditionally
modeled by soliton waves in canals. The opening and closing of gates allowed the
soliton energies to flow around the Acupuncture meridians that formed a mobius
strip looped across the body surface with the crossover point just below the nose. It
was traditionally understand that sometime when we were children the crossover
point had its flow stopped producing two independent dissipative loops operating
independently in the body kind like our modern understanding of the right and left
sides of the brain. Also we are given at birth a certain quantum of energy that we
use up until we die. That quantum of energy is the reflection of the soul in the Body
where the soul is seen as the unseen cause. The Chinese traditionally saw the soul
825
as twofold as it was reflected in the body. The Jing is analogous to our biological
concept of enzymes that form hypercycles that regulate cells. We are given a
discrete limited amount of enzymes that we use throughout our life. The Chi moves
through the Meridians not as a flow but in instantaton like jumps from Acupuncture
point to acupuncture point. The acupuncture points are the locuses or junctures
between desiring machines. They form a constellation of embodied energy trigger
points across the surface of the embodied autopoietic system. Their arrangement
and interconnection reflect human ordering or Li. Between them moves the Chi
that has a discrete quantity given to the autopoietic system at birth. Thus
Acupuncture looks at the Minor Yang and Yin aspects of the embodied Autopoietic
system at the second heuristic level.
Homeopathy looks at the Major Yin and Yang aspects of the embodied autopoietic
system. Within the clearing there is a differentiation between Heart and Intellect as
separate from the body. The Greeks saw Thummos as separate from Gastros.
Thummos was noble heart that led to heroic deeds. Gastros was the drive of human
needs. Again this problematic distinction (like that between logos and physus)
needs to be collapsed together. In Old English we had the word MOOD that meant
the unity of Heart and Mind originally. Heart and Mind are clearly a unity that
becomes differentiated in our society into a dualism where Mind attempts to reign
over Heart. Instead we should see that Heart and Mind are a unity which only
appears to be differentiated. But that differentiation reflects the fact that within the
social autopoietic system seen from one aspect there is a center or radiance which
gives light to the world and seen from another point of view this radiance is
reflected off of a source outside the social autopoietic system. The radiance is
Yang, the unseen cause, which is the source of light that lights up the world and
illuminates the things in the world. When it appears out of the system itself then it
is seen as Yang and when it is seen as out of an external source then it is Yin. But
no matter where we see that source from the light is always Yang and the reflection
of that light is always yin. It is this light that appears within or is reflected within
the social autopoietic system that illuminates the world and makes all things visible.
It only appears from out of the social when it achieves an autopoietic formation.
This is the other way of looking at the autopoietic system via the fundamental
celestial therapies.
Homeopathy takes materials from the physus and attempts to heal the logos by
transmuting them from gross to subtle with the understanding that subtle things act
opposite their gross forms. Thus substances are proved by giving them to healthy
826
persons and seeing what symptoms are produced. Then these same substances are
potentized and made subtle and given to humans with the same symptoms. The
symptoms in the human patient cancel with the symptom producing properties of
the subtle substance. An important point is the potentization reverses the properties
of the substance and thus produce the dual in the subtle form and it is this de-
materialized dual that cancels with the regime of disease that produces the same
symptoms in the patient. Here we see a form of therapy based on the distinction
between physus and logos which developed in the west as an alternative to
Alleopathic Medicine that treats for the most part symptoms with medications that
produce opposite symptoms. In other words Alleopathic medicine works with
external cancellation of symptoms while Homeopathic medicine works with
internal cancellation of symptoms. When we transfer this to the Chinese model and
get rid of the bias of the Physus and Logos split we find similar principles operating
in Chinese Herbology. Chinese Herbology attempts to repair imbalances in Yin and
Yang within the body by combinations of Herbs that have Yin or Yang properties.
In that science the balanced states of Major and Minor Yin and Yang are augmented
with two diseased states Closed Yin and Yang Splendor. These two extra diseased
states are nihilistic opposites. Chinese Medicine seeks to bring these diseased states
back into harmony and balance. For instance the Positive Fourfold is an example of
Yang Splendor and the Negative Fourfold is an example of Closed Yin. These
opposite positive feedback regimes are broken by growing their opposite within
them. This is to say that within Yang Splendor there must be some counter
balancing point of Closed Yin and vice versa. When the opposite polarity is
increased to become the same size as its nihilistic opposite then the nihilistic regime
vanishes through cancellation. This understanding of how to grow the immanent
opposite to cancel its dominant opposite is exactly the same science as Homeopathy
attempts to explore within the realm of the physus/logos split. The problem is that
the physus/logos split is itself a nihilistic opposition so that homeopathy cannot
fully correct the bias that is built into our worldview that says the material is
dominant over the immaterial or vice versa instead of recognizing the balance
between the two.
We see here that the Autopoietic system has been understood by the traditional
Chinese Sciences for thousands of years. Most of the “inventions” that the West
prides itself on were previously discovered sometime in Chinese scientific history.
And Chinese Science perfected the definition and exploration of the world in terms
of autopoietic formations. We are slowly arriving to the point were we can
appreciate the advances of Chinese Science today which were so far beyond
827
Western conceptions of systems that we did not recognize them as systems theories.
Similarly there are aspects of Islamic Sciences that similarly treat the autopoietic
systems. Their view of the world was based on the understanding that the special
systems outlined in this paper existed and had an internal harmony that could be
exploited to achieve balance and maintain balance within the system.
If we go up a level we see similarly that there is a heuristic that covers the Clearing
at the center of the Social Autopoietic system which involves the identification of
eight permutations of Yin and Yang. This level is related to the Trigrams of the I
CHING. Basically these Trigrams have a qualitative and an quantitative aspect
which are permutated to give sixty four permutations. These sixty four
permutations revolve around the twenty archetypal interactions between heaven and
earth. We can see them if we extract reversibility and substitution from the sixty
four hexagrams. Thus the sixty four hexagrams delimits the social level in its
quantitative and qualitative aspects. It is interesting that the I CHING was the basic
template for Chinese Society for thousands of years. It has the same structure as
DNA. It is in fact the DNA for society delimiting the sixty four basic social states
and their transformations via a ring structure of dual operations.
The eight octaves are merely the quantitative aspect of this set of Trigrams. The
qualitative aspect can be seen in the I CHING and its definition of the Trigrams. I is
interesting that the LO and HO river maps are exactly this relation between
quantitative and qualitative aspects. The HO river map is a magic square of nine
which is the N^3 where N=3 level. On the other hand the LO river map is 2^N
where N=3 that portrays the qualitative aspect of this heuristic level. The
combination of these two maps gives the full 64 permutations of Yin and Yang that
the I Ching embodies. The I CHING is the basic structure of the clearing within the
social autopoietic system. Other higher heuristics are possible but this is the
fundamental threshold of complexity that embodies the fusion of quality and
quantity within the social level of existence.
10. Artificiality
o Artificial Static Systems
Formal systems are used to give static pictures of systems. We can use proofs
within formal systems but time is excluded and so they have limited value.
828
o Artificial Dynamic Systems
Structural systems are used to give dynamic models of our gestalts of object
systems. The structural and the modeling of changes in structures is the limit to
which we can go in producing movies of dynamic systems with explanatory value.
o Artificial Ordered Dynamic Systems (dissipative systems)
When we consider the interaction of ordering principles instead of the systems that
they are ordering we are able to go one step further than we can go with a general
dynamical explanation. These only apply to a very narrow range of systems called
dissipative systems. These systems exhibit growth as the ordering system advances
its boundary and the ordering within the boundary becomes overdetermined and
generally more complex.
o Artificial Living / Cognitive Systems (autopoietic systems)
The jump from dissipative systems to autopoietic system is from one which orders
itself blindly and disorders its environment to one that orders itself intelligently and
projects order on its environment as well. At this level we could talk about a feed
back/feedforward loop of ordering. The feedback loop of ordering we call life. The
feedforward loop of ordering we call intelligence. Autopoietic systems are always
Living and Intelligent is an inseparably fused way. Artificial life (A-life) and
Artificial Intelligence (A-Life) go hand in hand and to model an autopoietic system
you must model both together. Separating them produces something less than
living or less than intelligent. This is because cognition is always embodied and life
is the embodiment of intelligence.
o Artificial Social Systems (reflexive systems)
Artificial Social systems are the foundation of AI and A-life systems. You cannot
have intelligences that are not founded on social bases just as you cannot have life
that is not social. If it is not social externally then it is social internally. Even if it is
a single cell the relations between the autopoietic nodes within it is social. Those
nodes display intelligence and life through their interaction. Life is not just in one
place within the cell. Intelligence is not just in one place either. These three
emergent properties are all interrelated and diffused throughout the cell. However,
we can look at the cell as if it were merely living and not intelligent. Or we can
look at it as if it were intelligent but not living as we do with neural networks. Or
829
we can look at it as if it were social in its interplay of different pieces to

cooperatively accomplish living or cognitive functions. But the true nature of the
cells intelligent and social aspects do not become apparent till you see the cell
operating with other cells. Then you realize that cells socialize as organisms that
have special intelligent sub-functions. And you realize that when organisms
cooperate together even higher intelligences become apparent and the social aspect
becomes even clearer. Thus we need to discern the social aspect of living/cognitive
systems an model that as well in our artificial simulations that seek to elucidate
these characteristics of these specialized systems.
It is the role of computational sociology to build models of artificial social systems.

Its goal should be to simulate Artificial Intersubjectivity (A-IS) as envisaged first
by Ben Goertzel in his book Chaotic Logic. This is possible because symbolic
interaction must be computable. If it was not computable society could not exist as
a functioning organization. Computational Sociology looks at the minimal
structures that would simulate the functioning of social relations between
autopoietic systems. We have seen that turing machines define what is computable
and turing oracles increase that definition. Universal turing machines allow us to
simulate arbitrary symbolic manipulation using multiple turing machines. When
these turing machines are sharing tapes and interacting across tapes as
communications channels then we get distributed artificial intelligent systems that
form social relations. It is not that sociality arises from distributed artificial
intelligence but instead that sociality is the presupposition that allows distributed
artificial intelligence to arise. Computational sociology turns the tables upside
down and posits the social which means the emergent as the fundamental basis out
of which arise autopoietic systems interacting in distributed configurations.
Sociality must be built in and modeled from the beginning. From the social arise
the distributed artificial intelligence and the ecosystems of artificial life. We need
to simulate the social directly and show its basis in the computable as an extension
of turing machines into higher levels of turing machine interactions which track the
unfolding of dissipative autopoietic reflexive systems.
We go further to say that there is an element of intelligence that is not captured by

Artificial intelligence and an element of life not captured by Artificial life and in
each case that element is its interface with the social. This is shown within AI by
Minsky’s concept of the Society Of The Mind. There is something beyond
differentiation and cooperation of distributed independent processors which cannot
be captured by these concepts and modeling techniques that make the mind what it
830
is. That missing ingredient is the social aspect of the mind which gives rise to the
independent differentiated cognitive elements as their origin. Similarly there is
something within life that is more than just the individual living unit that can only
be captured when one looks at evolutionary dynamics that presuppose social
dynamics. The missing ingredient within artificial life is always the social aspect
where organisms interact and in fact are generated out of an origin in the social. In
both cases our simulations of intelligence and life will always be missing something
as long as they do not include the social as an integral aspect of their functioning.
Computational Sociology must in turn be dependent on Autopoietic Sociology

which sees the hierarchy of special systems we have been outlining as the axis
around which the modeling of all cognitive/living systems revolve. Autopoietic
Sociology looks for examples of emergent events and reflexive autopoietic systems
within society and its mirror image social psychology. Autopoietic social systems
are very rare formations which are the foundations of all social and psychological
phenomena. In other words pure autopoietic social formations are unique are rare
instances that by their existence make possible other less unified social and
psychological formations. Autopoietic sociology and social psychology look for
these rare formations and relate other social and psychological formations to those.
Computational Sociology uses this theory to construct computable simulations of
the social both in its ultimate form as social autopoietic systems and in lesser forms
that are based on the ultimate form.
The dual of Computational Sociology is Social Phenomenology. Social

Phenomenology relates the series of special systems to human experience and
ultimately becomes a phenomenology of mundane love and its degeneration into
romantic love and nihilism. Social Phenomenology is an extension of Existential
Phenomenology into the social domain which relates phenomenological structures
to the social following Alfred Schutz but realizing the connection to social
autopoietic systems as the foundation of all phenomenological structures. In other
words it is the very rare social autopoietic structures that are the basis of all
phenomenological structures. Those rare structures are exemplifications of
mundane love in marriage which degenerate into romantic love on the one hand and
non-love or nihilistic structures on the other. The non-love or nihilistic structures
have been the traditional hunting ground of phenomenologists who explore the
anxiety of the individual on their own and isolated. Few phenomenologists have
explored the structures of love and then those who have used romantic love as their
touchstone. In other words they have gone to the opposite extreme away from
831
nihilism (too little meaning) to the extreme of too much meaning. As yet no one has
explored mundane love in marriage as a phenomenological structure. It is mundane
love in marriage that can assume the shape of autopoietic formations that become
the central structure on which all social relations are built. Social Phenomenology
explores these all to human structures and relates them to the possibility of the
emergence of autopoietic social formations such as those symbolized by the
marriage of Odysseus and Penelope within our tradition.
Computational Sociology is the non-human image of the pure autopoietic social

formation in a simulation. Social Phenomenology is the human image of the
autopoietic social formation as it is embodied in mundane marriages. Marriage is
an unpopular institution in our culture at this time. Marriage is being attacked from
all sides within our society. However, marriage is the archetype of the autopoietic
social formation. Why? Because it is an invisible bond between kinds of a kind (i.e.
between male and female of the human kind). That invisible bond is sociality and
the source from which social beings and social relations originate. From the
beginning of our tradition the household based on marriage has been counterpoised
in relation to the City. If other autopoietic social formations are possible then they
must be compared to this traditional social formation. And this social formation
needs to be compared to all the derivative social formations that emanate from it
including the City or State formations. Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus have
given one such analysis. Sartre in his Critique Of Dialectical Reason has given
another related analysis. More such analyses are needed now that the basic
structure of dissipative autopoietic reflexive systems have been elucidated. In THe
Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The Void the author has given a
genetic analysis of the roots of this formation. That study is subtitled “Speculations
in an Emergent Onto-mythology.” Onto-mythology is the study of the genetic roots
or our worldview and looks at the relation between the household and the city as
primal interdependent social formations. Specifically it looks at the Second Best
city of Plato’s Laws as an archetypal systematization of the autopoietic social
system. Onto-mythology is which looks at the roots of Autopoietic Sociology is the
final discipline that needs to be added to the other three already defined to give a
complete picture of our own worldview as an autopoietic social formation.
11. Conclusion
We have explained how general systems theory is extended to cover three special
systems theories which approximate the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive
832
systems through their analogy with the complex, quaternion, and octave number
systems and their algebras. This presents a new paradigm for which rethinks
General Systems Theory in terms of specialized systems theories involving order
production, life, intelligence, and society. It discovers that there are specific
thresholds of complexity at which these different systems arise unfolding from each
other which have analogues in the mathematical theory of algebras. Each of these
thresholds of complexity are steps from General Systems Theory toward the
definition of the social. This new paradigm gives a mathematical basis to the
definition of living systems and social systems for the first time. It allows us to
create a genuine extension of autopoietic theory into the realm of the social and thus
resolves one of the problems of autopoietic theory (i.e. how it applies to the social
phenomenal emergent level). It also allows us understand the relation of
autopoietic systems to their underlying dissipative systems.
In the course of the paper the disciplines of Social Phenomenology, Computational

Sociology, Autopoietic Sociology and Onto-mythology are defined and related to
give multiple approaches to the field of dissipative autopoietic social systems. An
inherent simplicity with a specific mathematical harmony and differentiation is
discovered to underlie these diverse phenomena which connects them to each other
as different emergent levels that arise out of General Systems Theory and extend it
into the realms of these specialized systems theories which explain the basis of
some of the most important phenomena in the universe. The inherent complexity of
these phenomena is also explained in relation to their simple foundational structures
which are analogous to algebras.
12. Acknowledgments
This paper re-presents the basic ideas first formulated in the author’s work On The
Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds: the foundations of reflexive autopoietic
systems theory. It is also based on the ontological foundations developed in the
author’s The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The Void and a series
of papers on Software Engineering Foundations. These works are available for
review by contacting the author.
This is the first in a proposed series of papers which would treat each level in more
detail. This first paper attempts to set out all the interconnections between different
emergent levels and the other papers would treat each level in detail working out the
connections to the algebras associated with the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive
833
emergent special system levels.
Thanks go to Ben Goertzel for continuing correspondence concerning the ideas

expressed in this paper. This paper attempts to answer some of his critiques of
these ideas and attempts to present further developments of these ideas based on his
analysis and reformulations by which he has attempted to understand my
expositions of what I have perhaps too soon called a paradigm shift. His interest in
these ideas have spurred me on to try to express them better and to give firmer
grounds for substantiation. This task has just begun but without the interest that he
has shown I would not have been able to make what progress I have in clarifying
my thinking and the basic argument of the mathematical analogies to special
systems theories that emerge from the consideration of General System Theory
(GST). I have also been inspired by George Klir in who’s exposition of GST I have
found the basic point of departure for my understanding of Software and Systems
Engineering Design Methods which started me on this journey to better understand
GST and its relation to the theory of Autopoiesis. I would also like to thank
Leonard Woo who helped critique the ideas as they were being first developed. I
would also like to mention Larry Broberg who along with Bob Cummings and
others from Rockwell AESD has served as a sounding board for these and similar
wild ideas. Also I would like to thank all the virtual friends I have made on the
Thinknet systems theory and Dialognet philosophy electronic mail lists emanating
from majordomo@world.std.com. Special thanks also goes to my mentor and
teacher Ian Dallas.
834

Part 2: General and Special Systems Theories: Form,
Pattern, Traces and Magician Systems.

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. Abstract
This paper develops a theory of what Ben Goertzel’s Magician Systems are in
relation to General Systems Theory such as that of George Klir. It explores the
complementary nature of Form and Pattern and shows that another key concept of
Trace as defined by Jacque Derrida is needed to understand their duality. It lays the
ground work for understanding the intimate relation between Magician systems
defined in algebraic terms and the different levels of special systems: dissipative,
autopoietic and reflexive.
2. Keywords
General Systems Theory, Autopoietic Systems, Dissipative Systems, Social
Systems, Ontology, Algebras, Complex Numbers, Quaternions, Octonions
(Octaves), Psychology, Sociology, Social Theory, Computational Theory.
3. Acknowledgments
Besides those mentioned in the acknowledgments of Part One I would like to thank
Louis Kauffman for his explanation of several aspects of the Laws of Form and his
advances of that discipline.
Copyright 1994 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved.Pre-publication draft. Not
for distribution.
Draft#2 940906; Total pages: 906; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007;
File name: STTS2V04.FM
837
4. Stages of the Unfolding of General Systems Theory and Beyond
In this series of essays we take the General Systems Problem Solver of George Klir
as the epitome of structural General Systems Theory (GST). And we shall assume
familiarity with that formulation as expressed in Architecture Of Systems Problem
Solving. That formulation and some of its philosophical implications has been
explored in detail in previous papers by the author. Here we are interested in
contrasting the GST of Klir with an alternative formulation first presented in On
The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds1. That alternative formulation makes
use of the concept of Methodological Distinctions which is set forth by Klir. A
methodological distinction is the kind of ordering that a variable can have within a
system model. It has been discovered by the author that methodological
distinctions have deep implications for our modeling of real-time dynamic systems
as reflected in software design representations. In this first section we will build up
an alternative formulation of GST based on the implications of methodological
distinctions. In this we note that methodological distinctions are not just a random
fact about variables that limit our models of dynamic systems. Instead
methodological distinctions can be seen as the layers of any general theory of
systems. This causes us to build up our systems theory in these layers2.
4.1. Stage One
The first methodological distinction is “no order” which means the appearance of
pure unordered distinctions. We associate this with Peirce’s category of Firstness.
Each distinction is independent of all other distinctions and utterly without any
ordering in relation to them. This is the substratum for all our descriptions of
systems. The least possible model we can have of a dynamical system is a set of
independent distinctions applied to it in some wily-nily fashion where the
individual distinctions are not mutually interrelated.
We note that requirements for any system we might design have this kind of
presencing. Requirements remain always unordered in relation to each other. They
are like axioms or aphorisms which are independent statements. Try as we might to
order them requirements resist ordering. Thus the unordered set of distinctions that
are described by requirements represent a fundamental viewpoint on the system
1.Unpublished series of papers by the author.

2.See the second paper in the On The Social Construction of Emergent Worlds series for a fuller explication of these stages.
838
which does not go away or change with the addition of other layers of
methodological distinctions. Any system we might describe will have Firsts, i.e.
what presences independently as “hyle.” Ideally these Firsts are orthogonal to each
other, that is perfectly independent.
This is the first stage in the emergence of a dynamical system. In this stage we
know something is there, is presencing but do not know what it is. Firsts on their
own, paradoxically, cannot really be seen. They are the ideal of pure sensations.
But when Firsts are present we know something is there, we just cannot say what it
is. Thus Firstness is the manifestation of Thusness or Suchness as Thingness.
4.2. Stage Two
At the next stage the methodological distinction of partial ordering is introduced.

Partial ordering allows indeterminacy to operate between Firsts. This layer
manifests with the introduction of two new viewpoints: Agent and Function. These
viewpoints allow us to view the dynamical system in relation to the principles of
autonomy and intentionality. These viewpoints cannot achieve more than a
partially ordering. They are duals of each other. Under their auspices Seconds in
C.S. Peirce’s sense are produced. Seconds are relations between Firsts. The most
primitive relations possible are partial orderings. They are relations that do not fix
the relata but instead leave the relata in indeterminate connections with each other.
However the viewpoints themselves are Thirds because they go beyond the
relations given to give them significance. Thirds are significances that spill over
beyond relations to give a unifying perspective to things.
This is the second stage of the emergence of a dynamical system. In this stage we
know not just that something is there but that it is indeterminate in relation with
other things that are there. It is This or That. It is Here or There. But exactly
which or where is not known.
4.3. Stage Three
At the next stage the methodological distinctions of Linear Order without Distance
or Partial Order with Distance arise. These dual methodological distinctions do not
represent a viewpoint but instead represent the interaction of the Function and
Agent viewpoints. Two partial distinctions can interact in two ways to form these
two possible methodological distinctions. The duality of these distinctions appear
again as the duality of minimal methods for the representation of dynamic real-time
839
systems. The duality here produces a “space” within the system itself which makes
possible what B. Fuller calls synergy. Building on Peirce’s categories we might
call this a Fourth. When we design a real-time system parts must play multiple
roles. This inter-embedding of parts which play multiple roles is synergy or
Fourthness. Because Peirce only uses Logic as his basis for developing his
categories he does not recognize Fourthness. However. in Geometrical examples it
is clearly something beyond the overabundance of significance produced by Thirds.
Fourthness or synergy arises in the interspace between the dual minimal methods by
which the interembedded design is created. Between the dual orders appears a
“space” within which there are folds that allow things to have multiple functions
that overlap.
At this level of presencing the dynamical system appears as a schematic design.

This design appears as slices of a turing machine that describes different aspects of
the system.
4.4. Stage Four
The final stage of manifestation of the system in terms of layers of methodological

distinctions gives us full ordering which we are normally used to using to describe
dynamcial systems. This full ordering allows us to see the system in terms of what
Peirce calls Seconds or full relations between Firsts. There is a combinatorial
explosion of possible relations between firsts. This is also the point where actual
presencing occurs. At this stage the illusory continuity which we assume glues the
system together appears.
This is the level at which full presencing as an illusory continuity appears. Illusory
continuity means that the 30 frames per second repetition with difference is
achieved so that the system appears before us as a dynamical continuity like a
movie. This illusory continuity is a simulation of the dynamical system which is
indistinguishable from “reality.” At this level the real number line exists as the
standard for judging the fidelity of the simulation to the designated as real referent.
Most forms of GST attempt to model phenomena at this level. Most of these
approaches gloss over the other layers of methodological distinctions. Klir at least
mentions them but does not see them as fundamental. In this presentation we see
the layers of methodological distinctions as fundamental layers by which our model
of the dynamical system is built up. They are in effect layers of manifestation of the
system in our simulations of it and thus take on an ontological significance.
840
4.5. Stage Five
From the methodological layers of manifestation we move on to the special systems

theories that equate with different peculiar systems. At the next stage complex
numbers augment the real numbers while retaining the algebra of the real numbers
merely extending it to cover pairs of numbers of different but indistinguishable
kinds. This stage is analogous to the dissipative system as posited in Part One of
this series of essays.
4.6. Stage Six
The next highest set of kinds of numbers are the quaternions and their associated
Clifford algebras. These are analogous to the autopoietic living/cognitive systems
which are an even more specialized kind of system emanating from GST.
4.7. Stage Seven
The highest set of kinds of numbers that exist are octaves (octonions) and their
associated Cayley algebras. These are analogous to the social reflexive systems
which are the most specialized kind of system that emanates from GST.
Each of these stages represent an emergent level of manifestation of systems. The

analogies between numbers and systems or layers of GST give us an important
framework for analyzing the phenomena that appear at each of these levels. This
series of essays are dedicated to analyzing these phenomena from the point of view
of these mathematical models. This essay will focus of the GST layers from which
the other systems theories emanate. The stages appear from out of the void where
firsts appear from nowhere. They return to the void as fragmentation enters our
numbers and their algebras. But between these two interfaces with the void there is
a definite structure to manifestation of our simulations based on the inherent
structure of numbers and their strange relations dictated by our desire for continuity
in the face of the strong presence of discontinuities fragmenting everything.
The value of this hierarchy of stages is that we can see that GST is not the monolith
that real-time modeling with real numbers might suggest. Also we see immediately
the way in which the specialized systems theories emanate from GST. These two
advantages to the mathematical analogies out weigh what might appear at first their
arbitrary nature. As we look more and more deeply into the analogies we find that
what appears at first arbitrary is in fact a very subtle theory of the workings of
841
Dissipative, Autopoietic, and Reflexive systems that expands on the foundations of

GST in many unexpected ways. We will explore many of these subtleties as this
series of essays progress. At this point though it is necessary to fully understand the
nature of the four layers of methodological distinctions as they compose the illusory
continuity projected by ideation on phenomena within the world which allows us to
isolate and model dynamical systems.
5. Pattern and Form
Having established the framework of stages of unfolding of GST and the special
systems theories that emanate from it, we will go on to explore in more detail two
ways of looking at systems that are very significant. In a previous paper I
established what was called the emergent ontological levels for approaching
phenomena. These were as follows:
• Pattern
• Form
• System
• Meta-System
• Domain
• World
• Universe
• Pluriverse
•
In that paper a plea was made to consider systems as Gestalts not as objects as Klir
does in ASPS as do many other systems theorists in their works. Here we will
assume that systems are Gestalts of showing and hiding relations and not static
objects that are arbitrary collections of attributes arbitrarily selected by the
observer. Given this perspective we will explore in detail the role played by Form
and Pattern based on the work of Goertzel. Goertzel uses an odd definition of
Pattern that is contrary to the one I have used in previous papers. For the purpose of
this paper I will adopt Goertzel’s definition of pattern as a gloss on an ordering of
something. That gloss must be simpler that the ordering which it abstracts. [In my
previous papers I did not use the term “ordering” but instead the term “pattern” to
express the thing glossed.] I will now say that a pattern is a gloss of an ordering of
842
something. The ordering is imposed by some ordering principle on the thing. The
thing ordered appears as a form which contains an ordering. Goertzel attempts to
deal purely with patterns and forgets the forms which bear the ordering that the
pattern describes and simplifies. What we wish to show here is that forms and
patterns must be seen as intimately related. For instance, Goertzel often talks of
patterns in strings of ones and zeros. But the strings are themselves the forms
which bear the orderings of ones and zeros that can be described as a pattern. We
cannot talk about patterns without forms except in the abstract. Every concrete
embodiment of a pattern as an specific more complex ordering must be born by a
form and conversely a form must contain ordered hyle in order to exist. Forms
themselves are glosses of things so that when we recombine the glosses we see that
the result is a structural-form which contains pattern within an outline of a thing.
These two glosses imply each other inherently and are in fact inseparable.
The reason for this analysis is that I have stumbled over Goertzel’s use of the term
pattern in my attempt to use his ideas many times. This brought me to attempt to
first get clear about his definition of a pattern as a gloss and then see how it works
within his overall system of ideas. This has proved very difficult and eventually I
realized it was because the concept of pattern by itself was incomplete. I realized
that Pattern and Form were both dual glosses which implicate each other internally.
And once I realized this essential relation I was in a better position to understand
how Goertzel’s magician systems relate to general systems theory and the hierarchy
of special systems. I will try to describe the picture I have of the relation between
the glosses of pattern to the glosses of form. I think this will be an advance of the
notions of Husserl propounded in his phenomenology because he does not consider
glosses of pattern but only glosses of form. In other words Husserl commits the
opposite sin to that of Goertzel not considering the opposite dual formation and thus
producing a flawed theoretical structure that leads to problems of coherence.
This is a complex interaction which will take some time to explain fully. However,
as occurs many times if we oversimplify by making one particular concept the key
to our thought then we run into problems later as our theoretical system flounders
under its own weight. Patterns and forms should be just simple enough but not too
simple. In other words we need to recognize the thresholds of complexity beyond
which distortion becomes unbearable. Sometimes those thresholds are not as
simple as we might wish.
We assume based on previous discussion that everything unconscious is not seen in
843
consciousness because of internal symmetries which are broken for everything that
actually appears in consciousness. This is based on the work of Matte Blanco
which to my knowledge is the first theorist to see the unconscious in terms of
symmetries. At one focus of the ellipse of consciousness is an identity point which
hides the part below the water of the iceberg of consciousness. The symmetries of
the unconscious hides what is normally called the “unconscious” which is an
always hidden source of disordering that Derrida called DifferAnce. DifferAnce is
related to what Heidegger calls Being Crossed Out and what Merleau Ponty calls
Hyper Being. All these are names for a source for the production of asymmetry
beyond the symmetries that cancel each other out to make everything in the
unconscious remain unmanifest. As Derrida’s analysis in Of Grammatology shows
the gloss on the operation of the differing and deferring of DifferAnce appear as
latent traces that represent the substrate of interferences that underlie all
manifestation. Manifestation is composed of a myriad asymmetries that all
interfere with each other and those interferences appear as glossed traces. Traces
must be understood in the sense of the indentations in the substrate that show where
signs have made impressions. When we write on a pad and then lift the sheet to
expose the indentions which must be shaded to be seen we are looking at traces.
Traces that gloss complex interference patterns too complex to be accurately
described blend into the substrate itself. But some traces are sufficiently worn and
defined to be seen as ultra-forms below the semiotic level. It is this level of ultra-
forms that Derrida addresses in Of Grammatology.
Within consciousness, above the threshold of cancellation and annihilation in the

symmetries of the unconscious there arise temporal gestalts. They arise like pairs
of virtual particles arise out of the matrix of spacetime/timespace. In the envelope
of the temporal gestalt asymmetries differentiate into processes which reach some
point of full differentiation and then eventually vanish. For instance a tree starts as
a seed and grows to its full height to produce seeds of its own and then eventually
vanishes back into the earth. This whole process is seen as a temporal gestalt
described by Heidegger’s Process Being that appears out of the substrate of Hyper
Being and then disappears back into it. All during the unfolding of the temporal
gestalt through successive ideal nows or specious presents there is a delicate
balance between order and disorder in the relations of the asymmetries to each other
as the temporal gestalt grows and then decays. It is my hypothesis that the relation
between pattern and form as glosses are rooted in this delicate balance of order and
disorder. In fact Order is seen on the background of Disorder and vice versa. When
we look at the coherences of disorder we see forms and when we look at the
844
coherences of disorder we see patterns. Forms and patterns are glosses on these
complex relations between order and disorder that can only be seen though each
other. The order within the temporal gestalt is imposed by an ordering principle
from nowhere operating thought a singularity within the dissipative system. The
form appears from a point of view of an observer interacting with the physical
boundary of the dissipative system who holds a particular viewpoint. When we
combine the glosses of form and pattern we get a structural form and when we see
these in the context of showing and hiding relations that define the system we get a
formal-structural system. This is to say that Klir’s epistemological framework
applies the interrelation of form to pattern glosses within the system defining each
element as a structural form within the system.
Now when we look at Goertzel’s examples of patterns we notice that their formal
aspect is suppressed and their patterning aspect is accentuated. Likewise if we look
at Husserl’s phenomenology we see that the formal aspects are emphasized and the
patterning aspects which would be distorted by essential deformation are
suppressed. Both are partial views that need to be corrected by supplementing each
other. Both views arise as glosses of what Husserl calls the noematic nuclei. Those
independent views are separately cognized noetically and then recombined into a
structural synthesis. Husserl does not represent the structural synthesis because his
is essentially a purely formal view representative of the philosophical frameworks
of his time. However, we can readily understand how individual objects can appear
as formal-structural glosses composed of orthogonal pattern and form glosses
combined according to the epistemological framework of Klir. Thus we posit that
Klir’s framework of epistemological levels applies to the objects within the
systemic gestalt as well as to the whole gestalt. Between the noematic nucleus and
the structural form of the object exists the essence seen by eidetic intuition as
posited by Husserl. This essence has another aspect beyond that elucidated by
Husserl. We will call that other aspect the integra. The integra is to the pattern
what the essence is to the form. In other words there is an intuition of the inner
coherence of the pattern similar to the intuition of the inner coherence of the form.
The integra is the inner coherence of the repetition of the motif within the ordering
of the pattern. Just as the form has attributes, essence (inner coherence),
configuration and articulation (outward coherence), outline, and constraints so too
the pattern has aspects, integra (inner coherence), repetition and difference (outer
coherence), margins, and constraints. Pattern addresses the qualitative category of
cognition while Form addresses the quantitative category of cognition. Thus the
tradeoffs already discussed in the first part of this paper between quality and
845
quantity apply to these two orthogonal aspects of all eventities. Pattern ultimately
arises out of the overlappings of Forms that express the wavelike nature of reality
while Forms express the complementary particle view. The noematic nucleus must
combine both of these complementary realities into a single phenomena embedded
in the Matrix of spacetime/timespace. The structural form is a complex gloss that
attempts to combine these two aspects back together into something we can
understand within a single gaze as a model of the undecidable phenomena.
Now we are in a better position to see how patterns function in relation to forms
when trying to understand Goertzel’s models of chaotic processes. Goertzel is fond
of using the concept of algorithmic definition of complexity as a way to create
models of patterns these are embodied as turing machines with data and program
tapes. The data is one pattern and the program is another pattern which when
combined produces the original ordering that has been glossed. This is similar to
Klir’s idea of the generative epistemological level. The implications of the
epistemological levels for software have already been expounded in a different
paper by the author. Suffice it to say that these are structural-formal models of
systems which attempt to recombine the pattern and form viewpoints, or quality and
quantity viewpoints on essentially undecidable phenomena. All our structural-
formal models are linearizations of phenomena based on these two orthogonal
approaches to the phenomena itself.
These views are built up in stages by moving thought the lattice of methodological
distinctions. The executing program with its data is the actual production of
illusory continuity. Below that we only have slices of turing machines which are
static partial representations. Below that we only have the partial ordering
stemming from the viewpoints that see everything in terms of autonomy or
intentionality. Below that we only have givens that are swarms of independent
partials. These arise out of the substrate of tendencies and possibilities that underlie
all probabilistic manifestations of temporal gestalts. These temporal gestalts may
be sliced by ideal planes representing moments in time but cannot ever be reduced
to just a series of mappings from one of these planes to the next.
Now if we consider the string of ones and zeros we see that the string is a form and
the ones and zeros form a pattern. Both the form and the pattern are orthogonal
glosses of the actual offs and ons of the memory location. We can use this analogy
because the artificial separation between patterns of memory locations has already
been achieved within the computer complex. If we look out at the world around us
846
this is a very artificial type of formation that almost never appears. We can see the
form as the rules that only allows linear ordered bits with values of one or zero to
appear within the “string” formation. Different binary strings can only be compared
or concatenated because we have the concept of a form which delimits one string
from the other. So without the concept of “binary string” as a form the content of
the pattern “100100100100” as a repetition of “100” four times could not be
defined. The self-delimitation of the pattern depends on the delimitation of the
form as the bearer of the pattern.
In this analysis we see that form and pattern are mutually implicating and
interdependent. This analysis could be extended to the other ontologically
emergent hierarchical levels. Here we needed to prove that pattern could not be
understood without form in order to make use of these concepts. But a similar
relation exists between all of the ontological hierarchical levels. They all mutually
implicate each other. We could go on to show how we need the gestalt of the
system to understand form and pattern or we need the meta-system in order to
understand systems and so on up to the concept of world and beyond. This mutual
interdependence of ontological levels is part of the synergy of our projection of the
world. When we reduce everything to only one level we erase a great deal of tacit
knowledge and oversimplify our relation to existence. Only by applying
simultaneously all the emergent ontological levels can we unfold our tacit
knowledge into the multidimensional explicit rendering of this knowledge. We call
this knowledge tacit because we are merely describing the lens we all use to look at
the phenomena. Everyone implicitly understand what patterns, forms, systems,
meta-systems are because it is the result of our mutual project of socially
constructing the world.
Finally we should acknowledge that the arising and vanishing of the temporal
gestalt contains all the different kinds of Being that have been described in the first
part of this paper. The temporal gestalt itself has Process Being as its basis. That
may be sliced at multiple now points which represent Pure Presence. The
cancellation of the symmetries that the temporal gestalt arises from and returns to
reflects Hyper Being. The tendencies within the interface between Hyper and
Process Beings that set each temporal gestalt onto its own unique unfolding course
reflects Wild Being. All the kinds of Being work in concert to produce
manifestation as we know it within the Western worldview. When we build models
of what manifest and manifest those models we do so using the levels of
methodological distinctions which underlie the full structural simulations that
847
appear in Klir’s GST and underlie Goertzel’s concept of Magician systems as

general computing structures.
With magician systems Goertzel has successfully addressed a major flaw of GST
which is the assumption of illusory continuity. Magician systems embody all the
four kinds of Being together in a single model that assumes discontinuity instead of
continuity. Goertzel shows we can simulate any continuous system with magicians
but that magician systems are more broad in that they can also simulate nonlinear
systems that lack continuity. I have dealt extensively with the magician system
model in On The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds. Here we merely want
to mention that magician systems appear to be superior models for chaotic and
nonlinear complex dynamical systems then the normal GST models that assume
continuity. Our goal must be to reconcile the magician system structure with the
levels of specialized systems as well as the general systems theory in order to prove
its universality. We do this as a prelude to proposing that magician systems are
especially suitable for modeling social systems within Artificial Intersubjectivity
simulations that encompass all the lower level special systems as well as
exemplifying general systems architecture.
6. Magicians and Special Systems Theory
In his draft paper “Complex Systems and Hyper-complex Fractals” Goertzel takes a
crack at defining Magician systems in terms of algebras. In this section we will
explore the odd algebras he comes up with and see how these relate to the Special
Systems Theories that emanate from GST.
Basically Goertzel attempts to construct an algebra that is analogous to quaternions

and fails. However, in this case the failure of the analogous is more enlightening
than any success would have been. In effect Goertzel constructs a magician system
as a system with three operators M(+, *, #) where “+” means annihilation, “*”
means mutual action, and “#” means joining to form a gestalt. I will introduce the
following change in notation so that we do not get confused with normal addition
and multiplication operations.
848
Goertzel Palmer Notations

+ a!b annihilation
* a>b, a|b, a<b mutual action
# a#b gestalt joining
Thus a magician system is composed of a set of elements called magicians that can
effect each other through a set of operations involving annihilation, mutual action,
and gestalt joining. In formal notation this would be represented as M[!,[>,|,<],#].
The operation for annihilation “!” will take two magicians a and b and make them
mutually vanish, i.e. taking them out of manifestation together if they are dual
canceling opposites. If not the operation will leave as a residue everything that
cannot be canceled or in other words everything that is asymmetrical in the
composites of magicians that are canceled.
A ! B = C means that composite of magicians A is canceled with composite of

magicians B to leave the asymmetrical residue C.
Besides canceling Magicians can act on each other to create other magicians. This
action may be unidirectional or bidirectional. Unidirectional action is represented
by a “>” or “<“ showing the direction of influence. Bidirectional or balanced action
is represented by “|” to show that each side influences the other. So for instance ! is
one particular kind of |.
A > B => C means that A acts on B to produce the result C. This is equivalent to
saying B < A => C. But A > B =/ A < B. In other words actions may not be
commutative. If they are commutative then they are represented with |.
Finally there is a join operation that produces higher level gestalts of patterns that
combine magicians. The join operation # may also be used to create persistence
and identity with dummy magicians.
A # B = C means that A and B combine into a whole greater than the sum of its
parts called C. This joining operation may not be associative so we use parentheses
as in “(A#B)#C =/ A#(B#C)” to differentiate these sub-gestalts that may appear
very different like the standard image of the young woman and the old hag that
psychologists like to use to show how two gestalts of the same pattern may hide
each other.
849
From this analysis it may be apparent the direction we are headed. Each operation
within Goertzel’s strange algebra connects to a different level of the special systems
developed in the previous part of this series of essays. There is no unified single
algebra that describes magician systems because these systems span all three levels
of the unfolding of special systems.
• Annihilation “!” relates to dissipative systems and complex numbers.
• Action “<,“ “|,” and “>” relates to autopoietic systems and quaternion
numbers and specifically looses the commutative property as their
Clifford algebras do.
• Gestalt joining “#” relates to the social reflexive systems and the octave
numbers and specifically loses the associative properties as their
Cayley algebras do.
The magician systems then span these levels of special systems and present us with
a model that has special features connected to each level. Thus magician systems
cannot be modeled by algebras but are supra-algebraic. Reducing them to algebras
will only lead to distortions of either algebras or them. And we see this in
Goertzel’s valiant attempt to unify these two formations. Instead we see these
operations as signifying the emergent properties of each special systems level
which combine into a single formation that unifies them into a single dynamic
formalism. Dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems can all be modeled by
magicians because they are all subsets of the emergent properties that combine to
form the magician system. Thus just as the GST is built up by the methodological
distinctions so the Magician formalism is built up of the emergent properties of the
special systems that operate together to create the possibility of dynamic magician
systems. In this way the continuous simulation of the GST is the dual of the
discontinuous simulation of the Magician system.
I think this is a startling result that shows the brilliance of the magician formalism in
a striking manner. As show in On The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds
this model embodies all the different kinds of Being into a single formal model of
discontinuous change that can mimic continuous change but allow us to model
nonlinear complex systems as well. Now we see that the operations of this
magician system also uses the emergent properties of each specialized system as its
operations so that is unifies the special systems into a whole much like the whole of
GST without rendering them a monolithic structure like the monolithic structure of
GST. I believe that Goertzel should be commended for the intuitive leap that
850
formed such a model that is really the inverse of the static continuous GST
structure. I doubt if anyone could have inverted the GST structure starting from
first principles. Magician systems have all the right elements to model the different
kinds of Being and the emergent properties of the special systems and no more.
They are very elegant theoretical formations that have the wonderful characteristic
of modeling complex or chaotic nonlinear dynamic systems much better than GST
theoretical formations. Where GST excels at linear dynamic systems Magician
systems excel at nonlinear dynamic systems. The two together model all known
types of systems.
If we consider that magicians themselves might be seen as structural-forms then we

see it is possible to actually combine the two kinds of dynamic modeling into a
single model addresses both continuity and discontinuity at the same time with the
strength of each model. This also allows us to consider what a magician is: in this
analogy a magician is a structural form and so is a combination of form and pattern
into a single undecidable whole. As such these wholes describe the epiphany,
unfolding and vanishing of temporal gestalts which have certain operations of
annihilation, action, and joining that operate between them. At each level of special
system what this node is would change. Where only annihilation exists we would
have a dissipative system. When we add action to annihilation we describe an
dissipative autopoietic (living/cognitive) system. Finally when we add gestalt
joining we are modeling social reflexive systems with dissipative autopoietic
substrates. There may also be a degenerate form where annihilation and joining
combine without action. Between the discontinuities of creation and destruction of
magicians the structural-forms describe their genesis while evolution describes their
group action over time. Because of this we must posit that the group of cohort
magicians participate in some global genetic algorithm that defines there evolution
as a group beyond the lifetimes of individuals. This genetic algorithm is the dual of
the formal-structural meta-structures and meta-models that describe the genetic
unfolding of individuals during their lifetime.
Goertzel’s formulation of Magician systems can be seen in relation to the work of

Ulf Grenander1 who is one of the few mathematicians to do an exhausting study of
Patterns of all kinds and to produces a mathematical model specifically designed to
make patterns comprehensible. In this work he reduces all patterns to generators
and bonds which produce images within a given medium. We can see the
1.Volume 1 Pattern Synthesis, Volume2 Pattern Analysis, and Volume 3 Regular Structures; Lectures in Pattern Theory; NY:
Springer Verlag 1976, 1978, 1981; Volumes 18, 24, 33 Applied Mathematical Sciences
851
generators here as being isomorphic to the actions of the magicians and the bonds as
being isomorphic to their associations. He uses the letter g to stand for a generator
and G to stand for the class of generators. He says that “The generators are the
units carrying information and since they signify certain primitive statements they
will sometimes be spoken of as the signs.” Generators have an index α partitions
them into disjoint generator classes where generators that are “qualitatively” alike
grouped. Generators have two types of properties: attributes and bonds. Attributes
may be any kind of value but bonds are bivalent being either “in” or “outbound”
links to other generators. To each potential bond connection is a “bond value” = β
that determines whether other generators bonds can connect or not. So it is with the
rules that apply to what bond values can connect that we get the connection to truth
values and thus to logic. Generators have similarity transformations between each
other that do not necessarily effect the information carried by the generator.
Similarity transformations are at least semigroups and normally groups. Generators
are normally considered as the primitives of Grenander’s approach to Patterns but
he mentions that they can sometimes have internal structure in which case they are
made up of images projected by some higher order level of generators. Generators
can either be defined abstractly or in relation to a medium or information carrier.
The normal case is for the generator to defined in relation to “a background space.”
Such a background space can have transformations of its own which represent
invariants for the generator.
Definition 3.1 If the generators are elements of the background space X they are
called point generators.
Definition 3.2 If the generators are subsets of X they are called set generators.
Definition 3.3 Let the generators consist of mappings form the background space X
into a contrast space Y. We then speak of contrast function generators.
Grenander goes on to define sources of generators giving several different examples

including deterministic and stochastic sources. Also generators connections via
their bonds may be stochastic or deterministic.
We can see that Grenander has a similar concept to the one that has been put forth in
the first part of this essay that talks of ordering of dissipative systems. Sources of
generators are similar to the concept of ordering principles. These operate
concretely within the system as generators with attributes and bonds that project an
image. For instance the rules in a cellular automata would be the sources of the cell
generators and the neighborhood would be the bonds which create an image in the
pixel associated with each cell that is the outcome of the local computation. In fact
852
the power of cellular automata as patterning devices comes from the near
isomorphism with the universal pattern generation structure that Grenander is
constructing. Sets of generators with their bonds are called “configurations.” The
content of a configuration is determined by exactly what generators it contains and
the structure of the configuration is determined by the Rules and restrictions on
admissible bonds. Connection types for groups of bonds take on the types of order
that are possible. Since bonds are graphs they can have various orders over and
above those of methodological distinctions. But methodological distinctions form
the substrate of all the graph orderings of generators. So we see now the connection
between pattern generators and the methodological distinctions that we have taken
as basic in GST. At each stage of building up the ordering possibilities of GST new
variations in bond structures become admissible. Grenander speaks of free
configurations, linear connection types, tree type connections, partial ordering, fully
connected graphs.
It is of interest that Grenander speaks of the Annihilation and Homomorphisms of

generators in one section1. Since Grenander goes on to develop a Category
Theoretic approach to Pattern generators it is clear that he is more interested in
Homeomorphisms than with Annihilation of generators. However, he mentions
these as alternative ways of producing mappings between Configuration Spaces.
He says that Homeomorphisms are natural ways to study images of patterns and
their deformations. He introduces the concept of an Annihilation operator that
destroys all generators of the same class of generators. He notes that this does not
normally lead to a homeomorphism between the pre and post annihilation sets. It
creates new free bonds making some that were internal now external. I think here
Grenander has passed over the possibility of a magician system. Because
Annihilations do not produce homeomorphisms they are not as powerful from a
mathematical perspective. Category theory cannot be applied so powerfully to
patterning systems that involve Annihilation operators which is exactly what they
have in Goertzel’s formulation. Goertzel does not consider bonds between
magicians explicitly but does so secondarily in terms of gestalt joins. But what we
see is that if we add this Annihilation operator to generators that lack the
commutative property and bonds that lack the associative property then we have a
magician system. Grenander comes very close to developing this theory and signals
that the possibility of magician systems exists. He leaves it as a route untaken that
later Goertzel formulates independently. If we add Grenander’s pattern generator
1.11. Mappings in Configuration Space. Page 91-93
853
work as an underpinning of Magician systems we get a very robust mathematical

foundation for understanding patterns that agrees with the basic analysis that we
presented with respect to dissipative systems and cellular automata. A Magician
system equals Annihilation operator plus Non-commutative generators plus Non-
Associative bonds along the lines that Grenander suggests and which align with the
emergent properties of the special systems as they unfold.
7. Laws of Form and Pattern
If we have defined a formalism for describing the Operations of the magician

systems we need to supplement that with a formalism which describes the GST
based on the analysis of Methodological Distinctions and the Laws of Form of G.
Spencer-Brown.
a’ / a” distinction
The distinction ‘/’ merely places separation between two areas of a space called a’
and a”.
a\b crossing
Once we have established a distinction we can cross that mark in an act of

transcendence. The crossing of the mark transforms it into a dynamic boundary.
Crossing is always from inside (left) to outside (right). Spaces can always be nested
to any depth. The deepest space is always on the left and the most superficial space
is always on the right.
Spencer Brown confounds these two types of notation by representing them with a
single mark which depending on its context represents either crossing or distinction.
= / -> distinction (top)
= \ -> crossing (side)
Notice that within the single mark that is both operator and operand at the same
time the two aspects are orthogonal to each other.
Since any distinction can be crossed once it is posited G. Spencer brown posits that
854
the operator of crossing is the same as the operand of distinction.
\ + / ==
This is in fact an image of the ontological position of the Western worldview which
assumes Ontological Monism, i.e. that Being grounds itself. We can say that every
distinction makes itself by transgression. Since reflexive autopoiesis is an image of
Ontological Monism and its inherent paradoxicality we can appreciate the way in
which Spencer-Brown builds this presupposition into his formalism as an
exemplification of the dominant interpretation of Being within the Western
Tradition as Will to Power. Spencer-Brown formulates an operator that operates on
itself. This is exactly what we would like to have as the basic unit underlying our
formalism which is building toward reflexive autopoietic systems. However, we
must be able to separate out the two components of the Spencer-Brown crossing-
mark operator-operand which are crossing \ and distinction /.
Spencer Brown goes on to formulate two laws upon which he bases his calculi of
form. For him “form” is a gestalt of the mark on its background.
// = / which says that two distinctions collapse into a single distinction.
\\ = ‘null’ which says that two crosses of a distinction it ends up just the space
without the distinction which we will represent as ‘null’ but should be seen as a
blank.
These two rules are very significant because through them S-B generates the
Boolean operands of his system. He proves that they are independent within his
overall formal system, i.e. that they cannot be derived from each other.
The first axiom says that any distinction repeated is the same as the distinction
made once. Iterated distinctions congeal into a single distinction made once. This
is really an existential operator in the sense that no matter how many instances I
have of a mark it only exists once. This is to say by having at least one of the mark
it exists. Iterating the mark does not alter the fact of its existence.
The second axiom says that crossing and recrossing the same distinction puts you
855
back where you started or that doing something and then undoing it is the same as
not doing it at all. Penelope undid her weaving every night in order to elude the
marriage snares of the suitors. The undoing at night balanced the weaving by day
so she in effect was standing still and not making any progress until her ruse was
discovered.
By tying the crossing operators and distinguishing operands together into a single
mark S-B gives us a formalism that has a fundamental reversibility in which we can
consider distinctions and crossings in the same expressions. Thus multiple
crossings are displayed by vertical layering of the right angled marks and the
horizontal distinctions are also shown by the same mark. This is a very elegant
formalism which is difficult to display in textual form.
AXIOM ONE:
=
These marks are at same level.
AXIOM TWO:
out
crossing
in = “null”
“blank”
distinction
These marks create a hierarchy.
However, as it turns out we are usually only interested in one aspect or the other at
any one time so that the difference between backslash and slash will server our
purposes for most of the time.
Spencer-Brown makes the point that the second axiom refers to reflexion which is
also apropos to our attempts to build toward the definition of a social reflexive
system. Reflexion means in both cases the mirroring of something back on itself.
856
In the case of S-B’s second axiom the mirroring is represented as the action of
undoing what is done. With respect to marks reiteration of a mark just reduces to
the existence of the mark. With respect to crossings iteration of a boundary
crossing merely erases it. Thus the two axioms have the opposite effects and
produce the states of “null” or zero and one or existence respectively which are the
Boolean operands that the system itself will operate on. Thus the elegance of the
system continues to unfold because the system of axioms produce the contents of
the system itself.
Operators = Operands
Axioms = Content
We can then see that the system itself is reflexive in the sense that all its elements
are mirrors of each other across an implicit threshold of reversibility embedded
within the formalism. Such a formalism is perfect for grounding our images of
reflexive systems. But their usefulness goes beyond that because such systems
allow us to have operations that are not inherently numeric or textual in nature.
Thus the system represents a formalism prior to the bifurcation into numeric and
textual descriptions of phenomena. This is because the formalism defines only
distinctions regardless of the form of the distinction. It then allows us to manipulate
distinctions based on operators that are equivalent to the distinctions themselves.
Number = Text
But the fact that we can operate on pure distinctions rather than distinctions in a
particular medium is not the only benefit of this elegant formalism. What we notice
is that S-B makes and equation of his first axiom with number and his second axiom
with order. This then provides a profound insight. We normally represent
everything as numbers that we can and what we cannot represent as numbers we
represent with textual descriptions. Those textual descriptions normally describe
the qualities of things that we cannot describe with numbers that are used to count
forms. We have already noted that numbers count outlines of forms and that within
forms are patterns that exemplify ordering principles. We see here that S-B is
making the claim that his formalism describes also the reversibility between pattern
and form as we defined it previously. At first it is hard to see how this could be the
857
case. But as we study it we note that series of crossings and recrossings produce a
iterative pattern. In the pattern we are constantly returning to the ground state after
the crossing and recrossing episodes. Thus Axiom two can be interpreted as saying
that the fundamental pattern generator is the crossing and recrossing episodes which
take us out of the ground state and then return us to it. Thus crossing and recrossing
episodes leave a trace in the ground state which is the patterning of the form. By
this patterning we can tell one delimited space from another. Notice here that the
dynamism of the crossing-recrossing is converted into a trace which appears as a
pattern. Thus the pattern exists between the trace and the dynamism of the form in
a way similar to what we posited before.
If this interpretation of Spencer-Brown’s formalism is true we see that it is indeed

very elegant because it encompasses the chiasm between quality and quantity as
well as all the other embedded reversible states already mentioned. We can
understand this if we think of form as being made up of distinctions. Within a form
the dynamism of crossing-recrossing distinctions creates the internal ordering of the
form. We see this internal ordering as the gloss of pattern. The distinctions also
externally define the form as multiple constraints. Externally all these distinctions
that define the form reduce to the existence of the form itself. Internally the
dynamic of the distinctions reduces to the ground state of the form itself as a tablet
on which the patterns appear. But externally the form exists over and against other
forms. So the two axioms not only describe the internal patterning of the form and
the external outline of the form. This insight comes from the realization that the
internal patterning of the form is merely a micro formalism. There are distinctions
within the form and distinctions that define the form externally. The distinctions
that define the form externally arise out of disorder to create the outline of the form.
The distinctions that define the form internally arise out of order and create the
internal ordering of the form where different orders vie with each other to order the
content of the form. The content of the form is only seen by myriad of internal
distinctions that are seen on the background of order provided by the stability of the
form. The form itself is seen on the background of the diversity of all the other
forms and so is an order on the background of disorder rather than the disorder of
competing patterns on the background or order provided by the form. That
background of order is signified by the “null” ground state established by the
boundary of the form. The crossing-recrossing dynamism leaves traces that
constitute the pattern as signs which fills the form ordering its contents. The
multiple distinctions constraining the form give the form existence as a viable
system of relations. That existence forms a boundary within which the content or
858
micro forms exist. Order is created out of disorder giving rise to the bounded form.
Disorder is created out of the order of the ground state of the form and that allows
us to see the pattern of ordering of the content. We can go on to posit that the first
axiom of existence establishes the autonomy of the form while the second axiom of
boundary dynamics establishes the structural-functional patterning within that
autonomous and viable existent vessel.
We see that the ‘null’ = 0 and the ‘distinctive mark’ = 1 that are produced by the
axioms are the actual content of the system itself. Thus the content is produced by
the independent axioms of quality (autonomy) and quantity (functionality). These
contents are firsts just as the dual axioms are themselves Firsts. But the axioms
together produce the Thirds of the Function and Agent viewpoints by establishing
the Secondary relations between the expressions that make up the two equated sides
of each axiom. These four expressions form a minimal system of elements.
// = “null” repetition = groundstate

\\ = “null” reflexivity = groundstate AXIOM 2
\\ = / reflexivity = existence
// = / repetition = existence AXIOM 1
/ = “null” existence = groundstate
// = \\ repetition = reflexivity
also due to the reversibility between / and \
\\ = \ reflexivity = crossing
// = \ repetition = crossing
So if we ask ourselves about the other possible relations between the minimal
system of elements we get the picture presented above of other possible axioms not
chosen by Spencer-Brown. Through these other axioms the complete revolution of
self-grounding occurs. S-B picked orthogonal relations between minimal system
components to produce his axioms. It must be remembered that all the equations of
S-B’s formalism are reversible or self-dual. He could have chosen the following
sets instead:
Possibility 1: (Laws of Pattern)

or
859
Possibility 2: (self-destructive identification)
/ = “null” existence = groundstate

// = \\ repetition = reflexivity
Possibility 1 has the same feature that it produces one and zero content elements as
a result of the axioms. It is the opposite of the formalism chosen by S-B. In this
formalism repetition instead of reflexivity produces the groundstate. Reflexivity
instead of repetition produces existence of the single distinction.
In possibility 2 the equation / = ‘null’ is clearly false as is the equation relating

reflexivity and repetition. It says that existence equals nonexistence and that
repetition of the markers is the same as reflexivity across boundaries. Thus this
possibility 2 could not be the basis of any formalism. In fact it is the destruction of
the possibility of a formalism. If these equations are true then no formalism could
exist because all the differences collapse. Thus we see that this Possibility 2
represents the self-cancellation of the system and can be equated with identity.
Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form
\\ = “null” reflexivity = groundstate AXIOM 2

// = / repetition = existence AXIOM 1
• Reality
• Materialism
Possibility 1: (Laws of Pattern)

• Truth
• Idealism
If we look back again at the dual axioms systems we see that the Spencer-Brown
formulation equates repetition with existence rather than reflexivity. Thus we can
say that we have a materialist formalism rather than an idealist formalism. Spencer-
Brown sees reflexivity as generating the groundstate whereas the repetitions that fill
860
the groundstate produce existence. Such a system is oriented toward the definition
of Reality because the reflective groundstate is the basis for understanding the
repetitions that produce existence. On the other hand the Possibility 1 axiom set
makes reflection the basis of existence and repetitions produce the groundstate. The
repetitions are related to the verification process which needs to constantly be
repeated to verify the truth of the propositions defined by the system.
If we look at the set of possible axioms that S-B had to choose from we see that the
system itself embodies the three sub-concepts of Being: Reality, Truth and Identity.
These also define the ellipse of consciousness as we have seen in Part One of this
series of essays.
If we ask the question how Spencer-Brown produced such an elegant formalism the
answer is in his introduction where he mentions Lord Russell. He mentions briefly
the meta-levels which are an important result of Russell’s work with Whitehead
which occur in Principia Mathematica. Meta-levels are the opposite of Higher
Logical Types. These concepts together embody Russell and Whitehead’s solution
to most paradoxes. Instead of paradoxes we have infinite proliferation of meta-
levels like those we see in Klir’s GST. The formalism of S-B is constructed in such
a way so that it is multidimensionally at a meta-level above logic and mathematics.
In other words it is set at a meta-level beyond truth and identity which represent the
two focuses of the ellipse of consciousness. This is why he has chosen the axiom
system that equates with reality. He has coded into this meta-level the proto-
concepts necessary to generate both mathematics and logic. We can only
understand his formalism if we look at it as constructing the meta-level language
from which mathematics and logic are derived. This is why his system is
equivalent to Boolean logic. Boolean Logic has dual embodiments as the S-B
formalism and as the Possibility 1 formalism. Boolean logic can be seen as the
interface between the two dual formalisms. In other words the Truth and Reality
formalisms each extend Boolean logic beyond being just a pure mathematical
system but in different directions. So this game of meta-levels forces us to ask what
is at a higher meta-level than Boolean Logic and the answer is August Stearn’s
Matrix Logic.
We can only reach this higher meta-level that encompasses both Truth and Reality
by dropping the excluded middle and accepting the extra truth values of -1 (neither)
and 2 (both) besides 1 (true) and 0 (false). Spencer-Brown identifies the ground
state with the false in order to make his system a Boolean equivalent system. This
861
is an artificial decision for the groundstate should actually be equated with the truth
value ‘neither’ rather than false. However these higher level reversibilities only
appear at the next higher meta-level of embedding.
When we consider the axioms in either the Truth (Idealist) (Possibility 1) or Reality
(Materialist) version of the Laws of Form we note that they both are based on
recursion. In one case the recursion is a repetition of marks that reduce to one mark.
In the other case there is a recursion of crossings that take us back to the same place.
Because recursion appears in these two guises we understand that we are dealing
with a structure that can be used to define computability. Recursion generally is the
form by which computability is defined. Recursion bifurcates to apply to marks of
the same higher logical type or to different logical types. Note that a higher logical
type is a lower meta-level. This bifurcation is exactly the same as the one that
appears in the theory of logical types that needs not only meta-levels but also orders
within meta-levels to solve the vicious circle paradox. This Ramified theory of
logical types fell into disfavor because it did not allow many significant
mathematical structures to exist. But as Copi shows the theory of meta-languages
effectively has the same stratification not only into meta-levels but also orders
within meta-levels to solve the same paradox. This reversibility in the application
of recursion results in the orthogonal orders of crossings and markings which
embodies the same structure as the ramified theory of logical types. Recursion
theory like Boolean algebra is neutral with respect to this embodiment. The
embodiment of recursion in the dual structure of crossing and marking or meta-
levels and orders places a fundamental reversibility at the center of the Laws of
Form that these mathematical structures do not have. But we must understand that
Spencer-Brown was developing a system to solve engineering problems not a
purely mathematical system. As such he needed an embodied system which
described forms at a meta-level where any form can be described no matter what its
physical manifestation. In this meta-level language of form we see the structure of
Ramification exemplified not only in the orthogonal form of the mark symbol but
also in the elegant combination of different categories (such as quality and quantity
or operator and operand) in a synergistic way.
862
Figure 137:
Matrix Logic
REALITY Boolean TRUTH

Laws of Form Algebra Laws of Pattern
boundary of singularity
consciousness
Algebra Logic
Quality Qualitiy
Operator Operand
Autonomy‘ Function
IDENTITY
symmetry point
8. Meta-levels of difference
Form without pattern. That is what the Laws of Form provide. We can think
pattern as micro-forms which we construe as structures. However, the real problem
is that the Laws of Form only contain one kind of difference. What we really need
is a hierarchy of meta-levels of difference. Such a hierarchy has been suggested in
my paper on “Software Ontology” in the series on Software Engineering
Foundations. That hierarchy is represented in Table 1.
Here we see that there are a series of levels before we can even talk about
difference. The first of these levels are our resources that we find in the world
where there are natural complexes unordered unarranged by us which exhibit
natural variety. They exemplify otherness and what is alien. We might call this
unsuppressed discovered unadulterated variety. It is this level that deep ecology
addresses when it seeks to preserve the wild for its own sake. Within that
Wilderness we discover a sameness that is prior to identity. When we perceive that
sameness our natural inclination is to emphasize it so we turn the wilderness into a
rough hewn garden. We make subtle changes to enhance the aesthetic interplay of
different things. Thus the garden of sameness is partially ordered by arranging and
fitting together found natural complexes. At this level we do not distinguish
ourselves from the things so that everything is embedded in the social matrix. We
863
are the same as them and they are the same as us. We are all things part of the
Thing. The “Thing” was originally a social gathering. All things in their sameness
are part of the social construction of the world we naturally impose on reality. Into
this sameness enters anti-difference or identity which establishes the baseline on
which all meta-levels of difference are distinguished. This in S-B’s terms would be
the groundstate. Within the groundstate there is a hierarchy of difference that
arises. The zero level of difference is content or hyle. This is the minimal
structuralizable particles. This is the finest grid we can catch reality in using our
forms at a particular strata of emergent phenomena. We must always remember
that in each case we are addressing only one strata of emergent phenomena and that
other strata exist below and above the strata being considered. In fact one thing we
must keep in mind is that sometimes the different strata overlap so that what is a
form at one strata is a trace at another strata. Strata in fact interpenetrate in such a
way that different meta-levels within a strata might be aligned with other meta-
levels of different strata. It is due to this overlapping that we get the impression that
existence is continuous because strata bleed into each other causing lines of
demarcation to be undecidable in ways that S-B’s Laws of Form does not consider.
It is important that the lowest level of difference can only be seen on the
background of identity or anti-difference. We must clear the table and make a clean
slate in order to see the lowest level of difference. It is within this lowest level of
difference that pattern occurs. If not forms appeared at then next meta-level then
we would have a plenum of patterned content which stretched indefinitely like an
infinite cellular automata array. That pattern may be very dynamic like the states of
the cellular automata array we explored in the last part of this essay and may
produce illusory boundaries by dissipative processes. But it is only when we go to
the next meta-level of difference that these boundaries become real. And it is that
reality that Spencer-Brown attempts to capture with is meta-level three distinctions.
These forms produce real encapsulating boundaries around patterns. As such they
set up the difference between the physical boundary of the openly closed system
and the etheric boundary at the singularities within the system that are the source of
order form nowhere. The distinction at the first meta-level of difference has Pure
Presence Being. As we climb the ladder of meta-levels the next level is that of the
sign which signifies differences that make a difference. The distinguished
distinction or demarcation at this level has Process Being. It appears as the
diacritical marks by which we mark the marks of forms. In Spencer-Brown’s
system these are the letters by which he differentiates different marks on their
insides. System and structure appear at this level. System is the Gestalt process of
864
showing and hiding. Structure is the construction of a micro-formalism to define

content and produce the formal-structural system (such as Klir’s) that allows us to
jump discontinuous boundaries at which forms disappear and are replaced by other
forms. Most of science proceeds to analyze nature on the basis of these explanatory
structural systems that are weaker than formal systems. For instance, the theory of
the atom is such a structural model which explains chemical reactions. As Bateson
points out it is normally thresholds or differences that make a difference that are
important not pure zero level differences or formal differences. When we continue
to climb the ladder of meta-levels we next meet third order difference which
Derrida calls DifferAnce which is made up of differing and deferring. These
differences are seen as traces or interference patterns. The discriminated
demarcations at the third meta-level have Hyper Being. They are the being of the
discontinuities or the points of cancellation themselves. Derrida talks about them
using the terms spacing, hinge, and erasure. He also calls them arche-writing in his
book Of Grammatology. At the next meta-level of difference we have no traces
because we are looking at the substance of the substrate itself. The substrate is the
next level down in the hierarchy of strata of emergent levels. We see that next level
down as an incomprehensible variety and see it as a palimpsest upon which the
traces of this level are impressions. Merleau-Ponty talks about this level in terms of
the Chiasm or reversibility of touch touching. Deleuze and Guattari speak of it in
terms of the inscription into the flesh of the individual by the social group. We can
think of it as the interference between traces or what is left after the cancellation of
traces. This decision on the discrimination of the demarcation has Wild Being. The
final meta-level is really the edge of the world in terms of thinkability. Instead of
an infinite series of meta-levels of differences there are in fact only four. After four
we reach the unthinkable that can be thought of as Emptiness. This is the trackless
abode of lostness which is the source of all meaning as distinguished from
significance. The discernment of a decision on a discrimination at this level is
empty and even its “emptiness”is empty. This emptiness is non-experiential and
non-conceptual. It is the empty center of the vortex of thought attempting to think
itself at higher and higher meta-levels.
When we see the Laws of Form in relation to this series we see that Spencer-Brown
was attempting to produce a formalism that could be applied at any of these levels.
But what he did not take into account is that new language games must be played at
each level and that no single language game can apply to all the levels. For this
reason S-B did not attempt to develop a language of pattern to complement his
language of Form. When we go to the library and look up “pattern” what we see is
865
that most of the entries refer to weaving, dressmaking, clothes material patterns,
quilting and other endeavors traditionally associated with women. Where there are
many treatises concerning form by men there are very few concerning patterns.
What we might conclude from this is that culturally pattern is in the realm of
women and is the manifestation of the negative fourfold where as form is seen to be
in the realm of men and is a manifestation of the positive fourfold. This is a cultural
bias which as caused patterns not to be studied to the same depth as forms. But as
we have seen above we need the complementary gloss of pattern to supplement the
gloss of form. This is because pattern sees order on the ground of disorder where as
form sees disorder on the ground of order. These two glosses of the gestalt of order
on the background of disorder and vice versa themselves interfere with each other
and the interference is the realm of traces. Traces are seen on a background of the
palimpsest of fading traces. Those traces are fading into the void. When we view
the palimpsest as infinite variety we see it as Wild being. When we view the
palimpsest as lacking all variety we see it as fading into the void like Chinese
paintings where the unpainted paper becomes the clouds that hide the forms.
Now we are in a better position to understand more fully the limitations of the Laws
of Form. Spencer-Brown picked one type of difference, the first meta-level of
difference, to construct his formalism on. That kind of difference is clear and
distinct. But that kind of difference immediately ramifies to lower and lower
logical types or higher and higher meta-levels. So for instance when we go from
difference level one that is static and clear to difference level two which is only
indicated by diacritical marks that indicate like temporal subscripts changes then we
enter the level of processes. In fact we can see crossings as a process distinction
whereas markings is a pure presence type of difference. So now we can see why
Spencer-Brown allows his differences to ramify mirroring the ramified structure of
higher logical types. In order to solve all paradoxes we have to appeal to higher and
higher meta-languages. All paradoxes eventually hit the barrier of enigma or
unthinkability. Thus we posit that only four meta-levels are necessary to solve all
thinkable paradoxes. The Laws of Form carry only one ramification from the level
of Pure Presence to the Process level of Being. By doing so Spencer-Brown
produces a formal structural system that covers content by producing a micro-
formalism and dealing with it as a structural system. In other words the second
level of meta-difference is used to describe zero level differences between contents.
But S-B does not consider the fact that ramification continues for two more meta-
levels. Thus he does not discover the level of fuzzy sets which operate at meta-
level three nor the level of chaos that operates at meta-level four. In order to make
866
his system complete we would have to add these nuances. The level of traces
(meta-level three) describes the interference between form and pattern. The level of
no-trace (meta-level four) describes what appears after the cancellation of the
traces. When traces cancel no traces are left but this is not nothing. Instead this is a
wild and profuse ultra complex and even chaotic variety which wafts in and out of
existence and is inundated by the void.
? alterity, what is antithetical to complementarity

A&B sameness, complementarity, belonging together
*I* identity, no content or form or trace, repression
aaa.bbb zero order difference, content
A/B first order difference, form
A%B second order difference that makes a difference, sign
A$B differAnce A supplements B differing/deferring, trace
A@B fourth order difference of the palimpsest, no-trace
null fifth order difference of the void or emptiness.
These are some notations for the different kinds of distinctions that are necessary to
give any Law of Form the full panoply of differences necessary to make it useful for
understanding the world through the ontological layers through which it is
constituted.
9. Ordering of Patterns
First we must establish the notation for “and” and “or” relations that appear in
Boolean logic.
^ = and
v = or
Then when we move beyond unordered distinctions we can build up ordered

systems of distinctions by moving through the lattice of methodological
distinctions.
A v [ B v C] partial order
At stage two we introduce partial order which allows “or” type relations between
867
elements. Partial order allows undecidable relations between elements. This is a

very lose ordering which is colder than free-floating distinctions but still very
warm. After partial ordering the relations between elements freezes substantially
into two separate but equal possibilities:
A ^ B ^ C linear order
A -v- [B -v- C] partial order with definite relations
Linear order can be seen as being constructed with “and” relations between
elements. This gives a very rigid structure in which the sequence is known and
does not vary even though the exact distance remains unknown between the
elements. Similarly we can think of partial order with distance as an equally rigid
structural configuration. Here we substitute for distance the idea of definite
relations of other kinds. This is signified by the sign “-v-” where the “or” is
surrounded by dashes to show the presence of a definite relation. That definite
relation should be designated by a superscript. A definite relation is any like
distance that provides something like a metric telling how far apart the elements are
even though we do not know their order.
A -^- [B -^- C] full order = linear order with definite relations
Finally when we combined linear order with distance or definite relations between
elements we have full ordering.We are most comfortable with working with full
order. It is the ordering of the real numbers. But we can think of other kinds of
orderings that are both sequential and have metrics associated with them besides the
real numbers. For instance graphs with distances associated with each arc would
give a full ordering even if we did not express these are real numbers.
We can think of these levels of ordering as representations of the possible orderings

of Grenander bonds between generators. Graphs, of course, have additional
ordering possibilities that are added to these fundamental orderings based on the
methodological distinctions. For instance, graphs can form rings or other
interesting topologies that these metrics themselves do not encompass.
What we need if we want to have a general theory of pattern is precisely a theory of
868
order which is what our reconstruction of GST based on methodological

distinctions gives us. Each successive stage adds a kind of order to our arsenal of
types of order until we achieve our goal of full ordering. It is difficult for us to
think of anything less that full ordering so strong is our wish to project continuity on
the world. But that full ordering that is assumed by GST is built up layer by layer
and some phenomena fall out at certain stages and refuse any further ordering. This
is the real reason that patterns are so difficult for us to deal with in a theory of GST
that concentrates on the level of forms. Patterns do not always lend themselves to
full ordering. Thus Patterns are ignored by our theories that want to see the world
full of continuities. Patterns many times contain multiple inter-embedded
discontinuities both within orders and between orders. Patterns are difficult to deal
with at the level of pure presence where continuity is projected. That is why we go
beyond that level to the level of signs or processes in order to come back to
structural models of content. We pass over content and then come back to it with
micro-formalisms after we have produced continuous formalisms. We can see GST
as a structural formalism which uses form to model content which is patterned.
Pattern is never addressed in its own right non-structurally. It is only addressed
after content is produced by anti-difference. The actual patterns are unhewn or
rough hewn below the repression of anti-difference. It is this repressed land that
women have traditionally inhabited in our culture and that is why they are so often
identified with the unconscious which is what is beyond the symmetry point of
identity. Women are seen either as the Other as in Greek society or they are seen as
the Same as men in that they are seen in terms of their belonging together with men.
The negative fourfold arises between the Sameness and the Alterity of women. The
negative fourfold is the ontological dual of the positive fourfold that inhabits the
world of light beyond the repression of identity. All the layers of meta-levels of
Being and difference are the embodiment of the positive fourfold.
869
Figure 138:
SINGULARITY
Radiating Pattern
Ordering from
No-where
synnetrues asymmetries
IDENTITY POINT
REALITY
FORMAL LIMIT
So by taking GST as being composed by stages of order we are in fact filling the
form of GST with patterns and developing a pattern language by which we can
understand pattern in its own right rather than as a micro-formalism. All patterns
are created through the application of the different kinds of order found in the lattice
of methodological distinctions. These patterns fill the form of GST and allow us to
structurally model dynamic forms. We see that the Laws of Form represents the
interface of consciousness with reality though the collision with the boundaries of
things. On the other hand there is the dual of the Laws of Form that relates to truth
and thus language and thus ordering which is represented by the axioms of
Possibility 1.

In this dual it is repetition that produces the ground state not reflexivity. It is
reflexivity that produces existence and not repetition. This dual produces patterns.
It is repetitions of the marker which are signified by diacritical marks ( /’ /” ) These
diacritical marks on their own separate from the marks mean nothing. Thus if we
consider the relation between the repeated marks as pure diacriticality then that
870
diacriticality translates into the pure diacriticality of the groundstate. This is the
basis of semiotics that consider all marks to have meaning only based on their
difference from all other marks present in the field. The groundstate is this plenum
of pure difference by diacriticality. Thus repetition taken to its logical extreme of
infinite repetition leads to the pure diacriticality of the groundstate. On the other
hand reflexivity leads to existence. Here we are ramifying in the opposite direction
as Spencer-Brown. We recognize that reflexivity has Process Being and we see that
between the reflexive crossings there is a pure distinction. We say that crossing and
recrossing leaves a level one difference instead of no difference. This is the
opposite of what S-B infers. Thus reflexivity leaves a trace as we said earlier. That
trace of reflexivity is the means by which the patterns are built up and the ordering
occurs. So we see that patterns are seen as arising as repetitions on the background
of the groundstate of pure diacriticality and that they are laid down by the recursive
action of reflexivity that leaves a trace. The trace is left at one higher logical typing
level than the process that leaves the trace. This means that the trace could be at
any level of the hierarchy of differences rather than just at the level that we posit our
formalism.
So the Axioms of possibility one produce orderings that can be glossed as patterns
whereas the axioms that Spencer-Brown selects produces formal glosses of
disorder. Possibility one creates a picture of order on the background of disorder
beyond the form whereas Spencer-Brown’s formalism produces a picture of
disorder of the content within the form considered as pure hyle or content on the
background of order imposed by the boundaries of the form. Or again we can say
that the pure disorder is what lies beyond the form. To formalism both the disorder
of the content and the disorder of the environment is identical. But to a pattern
language the disorder is a means of seeing order wherever it appears. The disorder
is introduced by the form into the ordering of the pattern. The form is the boundary
with disorder. That is why we have a dissipative system. Ordering produces a
boundary with other orders as it spreads. That boundary is made real by the form.
Without the boundary being made real it remains an illusory by product. This is
why Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form describe reality. On the other hand the Laws
of Pattern are oriented toward the mind or soul or what ever you want to call the
disembodied ordering principle that imposes order from nowhere within the system.
The laws of form have an embodied observer where as the Laws of Pattern have a
disembodied actor that imposes them from the heavens of “no where.”
10. Recursiveness within the Laws of Form and Pattern
871
The key point to which Spencer-Brown reaches in his book Laws of Form is the
description of time. It is time by which he represents the level of traces. This is
done by allowing recursive execution of equations in which the signs change that
identify the insides of marks. This transforming his formalism into a dynamism is
really the whole point of the construction of the formalism. By making it dynamic
it is able to solve problems that normally would not be capable of being solved
otherwise. This is because when these systems allow recursive definition and are
activated then certain ambiguous states are created which are equivalent to
imaginary numbers. However we must remember that here we are at a meta-level
higher than the appearance of imaginaries as numbers. It is these imaginaries that
we are interested in because it is possible to see them as the precursors of the
imaginaries produced at the complex, quaternion, and octave level algebras. It also
allows us to see that we do not have to think of these algebraic imaginaries as only
numbers. Because Spencer-Brown is operating at a level prior to the differentiation
of quality and quantity we can see that these imaginaries are more general ethereals.
In fact our hierarchy of meta-differences allow us to understand them. We see that
the next level after processes within the ramification is traces. Traces are not signs
or forms but the indentations in the palimpsest. Imaginaries are traces. Traces are
not nothing. Traces are in fact the wavelike nature of the forms that emanate
beyond the forms into the matrix of spacetime/timespace. They are something so
subtle that they cannot be represented by diacritical marks or forms. These traces
interact with the signs and forms so that we can actually find the pivots of those
interactions even though we cannot actually see the differences between those
traces and the signs or forms they interact with. Traces can be seen as fixed points
around which the signs that differentiate the repetitions of forms and the forms
themselves revolve. The revolution around these fixed points has the strange twist
of the imaginary numbers so that it is an involution rather then a straight forward
revolution. The fixed points that appear in numbers as the square root of negative
one allow the solution of problems that would not be soluble if we just considered
forms and their processes alone. The trace level shows that forms and their
processes at certain times seem to disappear and then reappear. When this occurs
they are really being transformed through the trace level of manifestation
represented by Being meta-level four (Hyper Being). The disappearance points are
discontinuities of cancellation. But even when cancellation occurs there are traces
left which become the fixed points of forms and signs. This is why we say that
forms have substance, because they have this invisible afterimage which exists
when we can no longer see them. They are transformed through that vanishing
point back into other configurations of formal outlines and diacritical signs as they
872
cross the discontinuity of cancellation. If we reinterpret imaginary numbers as

traces then we find we have a general theory of why these undifferentiable kinds of
numbers exist. Numbers are forms. Differences in numbers are diacritical marks.
But we cannot tell the difference between the different kinds of numbers that
represent the different levels of imaginary numbers unless we mark them specially
(with i, j, k) or hold those different kinds of numbers in conjunction. When we hold
them in conjunction then the different kinds of algebra appear that include them.
Only in these nets of relations between different kinds of numbers held in
conjunction do these differences at the trace level appear. And how do they appear?
They appear as discontinuities between different kinds of numbers that otherwise
appear identical. Thus they represent a direct link to the unconscious and its
symmetries. These traces appear directly out out of the unconscious as the differing
and deferring of differAnce. They are the breaks within the continuity of
consciousness. And these imaginaries that are traces appear within Spencer-
Brown’s formalism as well when he adds dynamic recursion and presses to the next
meta-level of ramification which has the properties of Hyper-Being.
Figure 139:
Process Being
crossings
Pure Presence
marking
*i*proto-imaginary
tunneling or jump backs or gotos
tracing
Hyper Being
The fact that imaginaries are traces is a major realization that allows us to
873
understand our analogies between hypercomplex numbers and their algebras and
the different special systems. Think of general systems theory as producing a
formal-structural system composed of structuralized forms (that is diacritical forms
where micro-formalisms are used to dominate content of the forms) that can explain
the jumps of forms across discontinuities where they are transformed. Thus all of
GST understands only form and content of those forms but does not understand the
discontinuities across which forms jump and through which they are transformed.
The discontinuities themselves exist at a meta-level up as differAnces. At this
meta-level up there are not forms or signs but only traces. Traces are the wavelike
counter image of the diacritical forms. They are the impressions in the substance
bearing the forms rather than the forms themselves. Now when we consider the
Laws of Form we see that it represents time as tunneling. That is we see time enter
as recursion through the tunneling which might be seen as illegal “gotos” in which
boundaries are crossed by moving into another dimension that makes crossings that
could not normally be made possible. Differing and deferring are higher
dimensional crossings of boundaries set up at lower dimensional levels. When
these crossings are made dynamic they produce an image of Time as DifferAnce
rather than time as process. Time as process means continuous time where things
flow in sequence. Time as DifferAnce means higher dimensional jumps that
activate the forms and their repetitions in unnatural ways. So we can see that
Spencer-Brown’s formalism when activated produces an image of the
temporalization of Hyper Being which jumps across the discontinuities that break
up the formal and process levels. At that level the forms and processes exist merely
as traces that is they only exist as waveforms. The waveforms are transposed,
transmuted, transformed, transduced in the medium of the substance of a given
strata. The substance itself is composed of the virtual particles existing at the Wild
Being level. It is a glass darkly though which we view the next emergent level
down, the next strata of phenomena out of which the current level, what ever that is,
uses to embody itself within the matrix of spacetime/timespace. Each emergent
levels can be seen as a different order of warpages in spacetime. At each emergent
level new characteristics appear which take advantage of the degrees of freedom
that are created by the next level down. But at a given level there is a completely
new set of constraints on order and disorder. The interactions of these constraints
within the degrees of freedom set up by the lower level allows us to view each level
anew in terms of the four kinds of Being. Wild Being is the production of endless
variety of tendencies within the clearing of the degrees of freedom set up by the
lower level. There are symmetry breakings in which some of these tendencies
become cheords that channel morphogenesis within the new emergent level. Forms
874
develop thorough processes guided by the cheords. Thus the level of traces are the
same as what Waddington calls the cheords or channeling of tendencies into
possibilities which are then followed probablistically by determinate forms.
The imaginaries at the trace level are the interaction of the probabilities with the
propensities to create possibilities. When a form enters into a potential channel it
becomes a trace. In physics there is the difference between potential and kinetic
energy. Potential energy is really just a point where the actual energy has been
transformed into an information configuration concerning the whole system. The
book is lying on the table. In standard physics this configuration of the system is
said to have potential energy. The energy is latent which means it has been
transformed into a trace within the system. It does not appear as a form (E=mc^2
allows energy to become a form), nor does it appear as any process. The activity of
the energy is arrested or held in potentia. It has become a trace which we can see as
encoded in the information about the configuration of the system as a whole. From
this state of potentia the energy can be unleashed again as when the book falls off
the table. From this we see that forms or processes when they become transformed
into traces become static and can only be seen by information that describes the
configuration of the whole system. The meaning of any one piece of information is
deferred until all the information about the system is presented. All the differences
must be understood in relation to each other in order to see the traces of the frozen
process or the latent form. However, these traces are not static in relation to each
other. They take part in the dance of DifferAnce in which there are higher
dimensional reenterings of the system of processes and forms from unexpected
angles which produce an underlying turmoil and incomprehensiblity within the
system as a whole. So the imaginaries come to stand for the still points in this
overall involution of the system of traces as a whole. These still points are seen by
Spencer-Brown as nodes in the system of forms and processes where things are half
true or half false which is to say undecidable. By using these undecidable points we
can understand the revolution of the entire system around the fixed points of
involution and thus solve formal problems we could not otherwise solve. When
these fixed points are projected from the meta-level of Spencer-Brown’s formalism
down into numbers we get the pattern of complex, quaternion, and octave numbers
and their algebras. These are just numerical images of sets of fixed points. These
same sets of fixed points should equally well apply to pattern. If we take music to
be the primal example of patterning, and realize that the eight notes of the octave
scale probably are set up to approximate the eight pure imaginary fixed points that
characterize the social reflexive level then we can think of music in terms of
875
involutions around the eight fixed points. We notice that in most music it takes
several musicians working together to produce robust music then we see this social
action as attempting to produce dances around the fixed point by complex
patterning actions in concert.
The levels of imaginary or trace fixed points can be thought at a level prior to the
arising of the difference between quantity or quality as different or can be thought
of in terms of quality and quantity respectively. The special systems may be seen as
the means of transforming the structural form of GST into a trace structure. We
transform the overall GST structural-formal system into a trace structure step by
step. First we recognize that involutions of continuous transformations are possible
at the complex level. Then we note that these involutions can be composed first
into quaternions that represent the perpetual motion rotations unique to four
dimensional space and then composed into reflective structures at the octave level.
All higher dimensions are described by reflexive symmetries so that the octave
structure has not higher counterparts. We can understand this in terms of the
introduction of cancellations or annihilations at the complex level. This is the
appearance of discontinuities within the formal-structural system. The
discontinuities are introduced in such a way that all the normal continuities of
algebra are preserved but at the cost of an involuting twist. The discontinuity
between complex and real numbers localize the fixed point at the square root of
negative one around which useful involutions that solve quadratic equations occur.
Next is occurs to Hamilton that these involutions can be composed if we can accept
losing the commutative property. Now the single fixed point at the square root of
negative one transforms into three fixed points around which other coordinated
involutions can occur. These allow us to describe the action of perfect rotations and
real rotations as a degenerate case. Thus as with Goertzel’s magician formalism
here action appears as the emergent quality of this level. The action is the
perfection of processes though the involution of processes. In other words because
the commutative property vanishes we need action to appear in order to allow us to
recover from any reversible action through a series of other actions. Those other
actions form a group which can become a hyper-cycle of groups that will allow
homeostasis to be maintained. However, the group of actions as a whole make
possible the description of perfect or entropy free groups of actions in which two
dissipative systems interact to produce neg-entropic formations. Thus the
quaternion rotations describe this possibility of neg-entropy which becomes the
threshold of complexity in systems where living/cognitive systems thrive. At this
threshold of complexity autopoietic systems become a possibility. Notice that
876
quaternions can be used to describe real rotations in three dimensional space or the
perfect rotations of perpetual motion machines in four dimensional space.
Perpetual motion machines can only appear in three dimensional space as temporal
phenomena. Thus the autopoietic system is a closed system that enacts perpetual
motion temporally by turning back on itself and maintaining its own organization.
But this temporal structure has an image as a frozen four dimensional structure of
the perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion is equivalent to no motion just as
for Spencer-Brown all distinctions is equivalent to no distinction. Thus we can see
this static image of the perpetual motion machine as the next level of a reduction to
traces of the formal structural system. The dynamism of the formal-structural
system in this special perfect form becomes a stasis -- the stasis of maintaining its
own organization indefinitely.
Next we see that at the octave level even the motion of action is reduced to traces
because the fixed points become the locuses of reflections. Once the perpetual
motion machine is doubled then it becomes merely a reflection of itself and all
action ceases. At this level the associative property is lost and social connectivity
becomes the manifesting property that appears within the reflexions thorough the
mirrorings of the fixed points. At this level as Goertzel points out different gestalt
pattern formations appear as various different patterns appear and disappear
through the non-action of reversibility. The infinite mirroring beyond this point
describes higher and higher levels of synergy of forms and signs and traces in
configuration. The trace level ultimately reduces to the infinite mirroring of the
interferences between the wavelike natures of the forms. When forms reduce to
traces they are seen only as information configurations which as written texts rather
than dynamic processes and reflect the differing and deferring of DifferAnce which
disturbs all texts which may be seen as an infinite series of supplements. As frozen
information the interference pattern in which all the texts vie for significance
appears as an in-finte hall of mirrors. It is an ultimate configuration of
interpenetrating synergy called by the Buddhists “Indra’s web” in which every form
reflects the differences of all the other forms. Each process reflects the
transformations of all the other processes and taken from a four dimensional
timespace perspective all these processes are frozen worldlines. The frozen
worldlines of processes become configurational information structures that exhibit
differing and deferring as they interfere with each other as wavelike structures that
underlie their appearances as forms. These traces of forms can be seen as static or
dynamic. They are dynamic when we see the interference patterns of the waves but
we must understand that all these interference patterns also produce standing waves
877
which do not move within the overall configuration. The standing waves are the
fixed points around which the whole structure of interfering waves revolves and
self-transforms. Ultimately the whole of the formal-structural system can be
reduced to these patterns of static standing waves at the trace level that intersect at
the fixed point of the eight octaves. The reflection across the fixed points of the
standing wave pattern gives the reflexive nature of this level that is produced when
two autopoietic systems are brought into conjunction as a social unity. At this level
we can see the whole of GST turned into a potential and that potential is used as the
motive force of the social system which is full of potential for forms to spring from
it and transform through it. This is why we say that the social has an essential
characteristic of producing emergent phenomena. The social is the ultimate
flattening out of all forms into traces or informational configurations and it acts as a
surface on which forms will be transformed, transmuted, transduced, etc. The
nature of this surface is itself rooted in Wild Being and is composed of the social
substance of chaotic tendencies and propensities but it acts in relation to the GST as
the surface or substance into which the formal-structural eventities are reduced to
traces in order to be transformed into something else. The propensities deform
those transformations but the entire surface itself acts as a register for the recording
of the forms and structures as traces so that the can give rise to trans-forms and
trans-structures within the whole system of reflections.
The three levels of special systems successively reduce formal-structural eventities

to traces from which they can spring back as other forms and structural patternings.
They take forms and structures and replace them with informational configurations
of pure potential. Out of this potential springs the transformed forms some of
which exhibit negentropy, living/cognitive structures, and social reflexivity. But
beyond traces there is still no-trace of the substance of the strata into which the
impression of the traces are pressed. That substance is itself social and composed
of chaotic tendencies and propensities. For the genuine emergence of new forms to
occur this substance must itself become active instead of being merely the passive
bearer of traces. The activity of the social substance is its enveloping of all traces,
signs and forms. This appears in the intaglio where different configurations of
forms, signs, and traces interact. If we do not look at the forms, diacritical signs by
which structures are marked, and the traces but at the distancing between them then
we see the level of no-trace itself which forms the strange substance that envelops
everything. It is like the level of virtual particles within space hidden by the
conservation laws of physics. Everything genuinely new must spring from this
substance given the chaotic propensities it represents. Deleuze and Guattari call
878
this the schizophrenic substrate of the socius. Stanford Beer talks about it in terms
of the endless variety production of human enterprise. By reducing all the
structural forms successively to traces by the special systems we finally see that
there is something beyond traces that leaves no trace, which is the social substance
itself. Beyond reflexivity there is the chiasm of reversibility which holds the
reflexive opposites together and at the same time apart. We call this the intaglio
substructure of the social layer itself which is seen in our touch touching and in our
social relations as the fused group that Sartre identifies and studies in Critique Of
Dialectical Reason and that Cannetti identifies in Crouds And Power as the pack
nature of human beings. We identify it with mundane marriage in which we
experience the intaglio of our selves and our partner though a non-nihilistic
distinction between the married and the unmarried which expresses a social bond.
At the level of no-trace we see the impression of non-nihilistic distinctions formed
in the void within the variety production that underlies our world. With marriage
that variety production is seen as reproduction which is constrained by social bonds
that are non-nihilistic distinctions. You cannot tell a married person from an
unmarried person just by looking at them unless they carry some sign. That
difference occurs at the fifth meta-level in the trackless lostness of emptiness. But
all of the social fabric in traditional societies and still in most segments of modern
societies are organized around that difference. It is a difference that arises from
nowhere to organize variety production as it occurs in humans as reproduction.
Variety production when so organized creates the trace structure of the society --
those invisible lines of force that everyone feels and which orients behavior but
about which no one speaks. These traces are seen in terms of what never happens
or what always happens within torn social fabric which is made discontinuous by
social taboos. These give rise to marks and processes such as the initiation
processes that create structural images of this invisible landscape. And finally these
give rise to forms such as the household unit, the family, and other human relations
described by the Confucians under the rubric of “ren” or human kindness. Human
kindness within the Chinese system of thought gives us a picture of the
phenomenology of mundane love. That is the actual love between brothers,
between husband and wife, between parents and child, and between emperor and
his people. “Ren” is the practical manifestation of love between kinds within
society. Within the history of Confucianism in China it became reified into a
proscriptive ossified and stratified picture of these relations. However, prior to this
ossification it pointed to the omnipresent phenomena of mundane love which all
degenerative social relations must be compared to to be understood. An example of
such degenerative relations is romantic love which is idealized within the western
879
tradition which lacks balanced perspective on everything. It is the balanced

perspective that the Chinese strove to attain and which they occasionally achieved
as the basis of their social relations.
11. Kinds of Truth
Now a point that needs to be explored further is Spencer-Browns notion of

undecidable truth. He represents this kind of truth by the letters *i* and *j* and
describes them to proto-imaginaries. They are part-true and part-false stable points
within the traces that the formal structural system revolves around. As has been
said previously the formalisms of the Laws of Form can be balanced against its dual
which represents the Laws of Pattern. Both of these together are one meta-level
down from what August Stern calls “Matrix Logic.” Matrix Logic uses matrix
manipulations by truth tables of truth vectors to expand to a higher level of logic our
traditional notions of logic. As we know logic only operates on the truth values of
statements (Predicates). Individual statements are evaluated as to their truths and
logic manipulates the truth values. But these statements themselves represent
relations within states of affairs or we might cay informational configurations.
When we reduce a statement to its truth we are evaluating a relation. So relations
have truths not the entities that make up the relations or are connected by the
relations. The statement “John is true” is only meaningful in relation to his wife or
lover. In other words the relation is always true or false not the entities that take
part in the relation.
In Matrix Logic there are not just two truth values but four. These truth values are
as follows:
2 = both true and false
1 = true
0 = false
-1 = neither (does not apply)
-1 0 1 2
neither false true both
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1
These are the traditional values of Indian Logic which was not distorted by the
doctrine of excluded middle as our Logic was in the Western Tradition. We are
only now starting to break free of these distortions in our way of looking at truth.
880
August Stearn finds that if he uses two dimensional vectors to represent truth then
he can use truth tables to do matrix operations on them which yields a more robust
logic than our traditional logic. But this formulation cause him to have to expand
the concept of truth and drop the limitation of excluded middle. There are many
benefits he derives from this formulation such as the ability of operators to operate
on each other as well as truth values as well as many symmetries among the
expressions of the logic that do not occur in normal logic. However, we notice that
Spencer-Brown’s two truth values are not represented among those that occur in
Matrix Logic. In effect we have two different dimensions of truth which must be
combined in order to get a complete picture.
*i* <<<<<<<<< proto-imaginary

2 1 0 -1
* j* <<<<<<<<< proto-imaginary
We see that *i* and *j* represent opposite half-truths while both and neither extend
beyond truth to relate it to its context. In some contexts a single statement may be
both true and false while in others it may not apply. This is different from half-
truths where there is a mixture of truth and falsehood in some undecidable way. We
notice that the two dimensions that are added to the primary logic symbols relate to
context on the one hand and on internal relations between expressions on the other.
We also note that because the Laws of Form and the Laws of Pattern are dual
opposites they would both exemplify these proto-imaginaries in different ways
when they are animated by DifferAnce. We can speculate that the proto-
imaginaries represent the root of a progressive bisection of the proto-imaginaries
into numerical imaginaries:
This suggests that the proto-imaginaries represent half truths that are separated by
the chiasm on reversibility between all aspects of the overdetermined system so that
one is the leaning toward quality and the other is the leaning toward quantity within
the system of traces. As soon as quality and quantity appear as they do in the
separate formalisms then there is a differentiation of the proto-imaginary into
qualitative and quantitative imaginaries which continues to the level of producing
the octaves which we can then recombine to produce the hexagrams that describe
the system of social relations and their possible transformations. In the hexagrams
that appear in the I Ching there are numerical and qualitative trigrams that combine
881
to attempt to attain the balance of quality and quantity again that was lost when the
level of the proto-imaginaries was breached.
However we can look at this a different way. We know that Matrix Logic is at a
meta-level higher than both the Laws of Form and the Laws of Pattern. It is for this
reason it can deal with the context of the truth values of relations. Within either the
Laws of Form or the Laws of Pattern we only get proto-imaginaries which then
differentiate when quality and quantity separate at the next level down. The proto-
imaginaries are only internal to each system and neither system can see what is
external to it. But it is clear that the Laws of Form formalism is what is external to
the Laws of Pattern and vice versa. Thus when we relate them to each other we get
the ability to see the context of the statement of relation and thus judge the
fittingness of the relation in order to see “both” and “neither” truth values of
relations as significant. In fact we can speculate that the proto-imaginaries are the
worm-holes between the Laws of Form and the Laws of Pattern complementary
formalisms. Each formalism contains the other within itself so that if we develop
one we automatically have the other and vice versa. But if we represent both then
we automatically have an image of the Matrix Logic.
882
Figure 140:
archetype of the musical scale
QUALITY TRIGRAMS
octaves
x i j k e I J K
x i quaternions j k
x complex i
*i* proto-imaginary
2 1 0 -1
*j* proto-imaginary
x complex i
x i quaternions j k
x i j k e
octaves
I J K
QUANTITY TRIGRAMS
kinds of numbers
The Matrix Logic has sixteen operators that are arranged in duals. We would
speculate that these are the proto-images of the qualitative and quantitive views of
the octave splits of the proto-imaginaries. This leads to an interesting vision of the
relation of Matrix Logic to the Laws of Form and the Laws of Pattern. The stable
points of the imaginaries turn inside out and become the operators of the Matrix
Logic. They appear as truth table matrices that operate on each other and truth
values of relations. Of course relations are between forms or pattern elements.
There are myriad relations set up within the formal and the pattern systems. All of
these are subject to verification truth and the evaluation in terms of true and false.
So the Matrix Logic acts as a set of constraints on relations between forms and
patterns. Constraints can be internal or external constraints. The internal
constraints define the stable points within the traces for the structural system.
These stable points differentiate producing the layers of the special systems.
Ultimately there are two sets of stable points; one for quality and the other for
quantity that are duals of each other and appear as images of the octaves. These
883
points projected from the inside of the formal and patterning systems become
external constraints on the reflection of that system within itself and between its
duals. This reflection appears as the duality between operator and operand at the
level of Matrix Logic. Matrix Logic operators are combinations of truth vectors.
Truth vectors contain truth scalars. What we see here is that truth is itself broken
into discontinuous quantities that are concatenated. This hierarchy goes from
scalars to truth vectors to logical operations to hyperlogical operators. These are
higher and higher logical levels of external constraint on the relations within the
patterns and the forms at the next higher logical typed system where the Laws of
Form and the Laws of Pattern are perched. To the extent the Matrix Logic
represents the external constraints the “both” and “neither” truth values come into
play whereas to the extent the Matrix Logic decomposes into the Laws of Form and
the Laws of Pattern then the proto-imaginaries that represent internal constraints
comes into play. The differentiation of the proto-imaginaries gives us an image of
these internal constraints that manifest at the trace level. These images correspond
to the dual logical operations at the Matrix Logic level.
Figure 141:
meta-level 2 --- Matrix Logic
contextual truth 2 -1
sixteen logical operators
positive and negative logics
hyper-logical operators
meta-level 1 --- Laws of Form or Laws of Pattern
proto-imaginaries *i* and *j*
level 0 -------- Quantitative or Qualitative Systems
Numbers Qualities
N^2 2^N
imaginaires heuristics
complex bigrams
quaternion quatragrams
octave trigrams
meta-level -1 --- Magician systems
In order to get a complete picture we need to not just produce the series of stages of
GST and the special systems but we must consider these from the qualitative and
quantitative perspectives and must construct both formal and patterning formalisms
within the context of the Matrix Logic.
12. Building Minimal Social Machines
884
Given that this is all quite difficult to imagine we will step back toward computing
and begin to relate it to a concrete computational system called Spatial Machines.
Spatial machines are described by Yosee Feldman and Ehud Shapiro
(Communications of ACM, Oct 1992, V35#10, pp. 61-73). These are computing
machines that inhabit three dimensional space and use light streams as tapes. They
can move in three dimensional space and emit and receive flying bits in all three
dimensions. This model has been described in a previous paper by the author in
connection with the definition of minimal social machines. Here we wish to note
how this unique computational model which attempts to make more realistic the
models of parallel processing can be seen in the context of our argument concerning
laws of form and pattern as well as Matrix Logic. We note that these machines can
use reflectors to set up light tapes that use space as a storage medium. These same
tapes can be turned into communication channels in a distributed artificial
intelligence system in order to define minimal social machines embedded in
spacetime. We can then begin to study the protocols for coordination between these
minimal social machines by which they accomplish computational tasks together
than none of them could do separately.
We go on to speculate that the symbols of the tapes that are used for the symbolic
interaction of the minimal social machines could be based on pattern and formal
systems such as we have been describing and their operations based on hyper-
Matrix Logic. Lets think a little about how this would work. A tape is a form
which is composed of places within which values are placed. No one has
questioned this original formulation by Turing. But is it not clear that the tape can
be considered as a space split by distinctions so that we could just as well use the
Laws of Form as the means of constructing the tape. This would mean that there
would be a single symbol that would demark the tape into a hierarchy of subspaces
as opposed to the blank tape. The expressions on the tape would have form when
considered in relation to the background of the blank tape. At any arbitrary level
we could transform these expressions into content using the primary arithmetic
which would yield marked or blank as a final value. Above that arbitrary level we
could use the formal calculus to manipulate the expressions on the tape that
contained these values. So far it is easy to see how Spencer-Brown’s formalism
could become the means of manipulating values and memory locations of the tape.
Since his formalism is equivalent to Boolean Algebra we can do this and remain on
fairly firm computational ground. The turning machine itself would operate on
these expressions using the same formalism acting as a theorem prover. By
concentrating on the values of expressions it could transfer data but by
885
manipulating expressions it could reformat the tape. Thus the format of the tape
would be seen to carry information actively and not just passively. Now the tape
that is divided into memory locations with content can also be seen as containing a
pattern. The pattern is the totality of the information stored and its active format. In
fact if we want to read the pattern we need to reverse our axioms in the Laws of
Form to those of the Laws of Pattern. In those new axioms repetition produces
blanks and crossing/recrossing produce marks. We can see in these axioms the
actions of reading and writing. In other words as we cross repeated contents we
interpret them as blanks but where we cross and then recross lines we interpret them
as marks on the tape. Or by crossing/recrossing we make a mark and by repeating
the identical we produce blanks of the tape. Another way of saying this is that when
we cross repeated values we see nothing but when we bump into something new we
take that to be a mark. The Laws of Pattern can be seen as distinguishing lower
level difference from differences that make a difference. We must remember in
Laws of Form this information is two dimensional so that reading the tape just in
one direction is not enough. We must in effect make a 90 degree turn and march to
the edge of the tape after every crossing in order to see how deeply nested the
spaces really are. Writing is just the opposite of reading. As long as the mark is
repeated then no mark is made on the tape but when a mark is nested or recrossed
then a mark is made on the tape. In this way we see how reading and writing
operations are generated by reversing the interpretation of the marks from the Laws
of Form to the Laws of Pattern formalisms. We see then that the tape can be seen as
either a pattern or as values within a format. We note that this reversal that
produces reading and writing out of formatted data values occurs again within the
turing machine. In the turing machine the input values are compared to state
information to produce new states and actions. State machines are normally used to
represent this kind self-directed action and other-directed action. We notice that
there is a meta-level difference between read and write operations and operations
that select actions and states. We can see the state machine within the turing
machine as being a way of implementing the recursion of the Spencer-Brown
formalism back into itself. Symbols that represent Spencer-Brown expressions are
read from the tape. These represent the value at the particular formatted location.
The state machine state can be seen as a pointer to the formatted location. The
current state is associated with a target state that can be seen as a pointer to a new
place on the tape. When the action can be to move the state machine, move the
tape, read, write, evaluate, change state table values, test, or manipulate values.
This is a pattern of behavior. Behavior is different from information. For behavior
repetition means no change. It is only when reversibility occurs that change can
886
happen because it takes supplementary actions to make reversibility possible. Thus

for behavior reversibility or the crossing and recrossing equals a differentiable
distinguishing mark. One kind of distinguishing mark is a symbol written to the
tape. But there are different kinds of distinguishing marks between behaviors that
are not reducible to pure information but are existentially different.
We would represent this new meta-level by the Matrix Logic which combines
ordering and formation in the same logical system. The state machine itself is an
ordering of vectors with internal dependence. When values come in from the tape
as patterns we need to reinterpret them as forms take them out of the patterning
introduced by reading and writing. Thus we compare them to a new formatted set
of values called the state machine table of state machine vectors. We could use the
Laws of Form formalism to create this internal list of events, input states, output
states and actions. In fact we can see clearly that there is no reason for the format of
this table not to be manipulated like the format of the tape. Except in this instance
there are four parallel tapes with expressions that are parallel instead of a long
single strand of tape. But as long as it is segmented into four parallel formatted sub-
tapes we can see it as merely a set of values within places that can be represented
just as easily with the Laws of Form notation with the added value that the format
and the values can be manipulated. The output of this table is actions which can be
the operations of Matrix Logic or hyper-Matrix Logic or other actions as we see fit
to give ourselves when we construct our processor. Actions include moving the
tape backward and forward or in the case of light waiting the proscribed delays to
access different parts of the moving memory. In the case of Spatial machines it also
includes moves of the processor in the Cartesian coordinates of space. We would
posit that these operations are again patterns of behavior and so that there is another
transformation between from and pattern here that we must take note of as
information goes back on the tape, is manipulated by logical operations or leads to
processor movement.
Essential to the construction of the processor is two registers besides the Matrix
Logic and other behavioral operations. These are the accumulator and the index
register. The index register points at memory locations from which things are
brought into the accumulator. The index register is for pointing at information and
the accumulator is for grasping and manipulating information. These two kinds of
register each are based on a different kind of Being related to Heidegger’s present-
at-hand (pointing) and ready-to-hand (grasping). We note that the software which
resides on the tape has Hyper Being as its kind of Being as opposed to the Pure
887
Presence of the present-at-hand and the Process Being of the ready-to-hand. This
leads us to realize that the tape is the recording of the action of the turing machine
as traces. In fact in a universal turing machine the list of state vectors can be written
to tape itself and then read in to create particular kind of turing machine on any
processor. This is a confirmation that we are dealing with traces at the level of
Hyper Being when we are dealing with the information stored on the tape. We see
the process of writing the turing machine to tape itself as the same process of
encoding into traces that we spoke of earlier. As traces it is frozen but by
manipulating the frozen image we can transform one turing machine written to tape
into another one with yet another software program. This is the basis of the
transformation approach to software development. It sees each level in the
development of software as a dataset to be transformed into another dataset. Each
transformation is at a meta-level from the last one in an indefinite series of
transformations using different meta-languages. So we see here that conversion of
the turing machine into traces is actually a practical exercise within the domain of
computation. There software embodies the characteristics of DifferAnce. And we
see in action the conversion of forms and diacritics into traces patterns so that they
might be transformed into other formal and diacritical systems.
It is clear that form and pattern and the switching back and forth between them play
a role in the computing machine and we can also see the value of logic within that
context. It is logic that allows us to test for conditions and then guide our actions
based on those conditions among relations.
Now let us think about what happens when we combine the tape that is formatted
using Laws of Form and the state vector table within the processor using the same
formalism. In effect we get a cellular automata of a peculiar kind. Think of taking
a Spencer-Brown expression along one direction and combining it with another
such expression in an orthogonal dimension. This in effect is what is occurring
when we combine the tape and the state vector table. We get nesting in two
dimensions of marks and we get crossings in two dimensions. This creates a field
of cellular automata which are then activated by two sets of tunneling programs to
produce the temporality of differAnce. These cellular automata are not necessarily
fully connected to neighbors but might be connected to any other automata in the
field. And the rules of these automata may be different for different subsets. The
two different timing sequences that represent recursion are likely to conflict. But
this is why we have the patterning dual formalism. Through patterning which is the
state value field of the cellular automata it is possible for these disparate and broken
888
field of machines to coordinate and communicate in order to produce results. Thus

when we look at cellular automata they have the surface of visible states that form a
global pattern and the global rules. In these Brownian cellular automata systems
there is not global rules but instead the recursion system, and there is no global grid
but only the layers of marks. Through tunneling any automata can be connected to
any other one. So we see that spatial machines can be transformed into Brownian
Cellular automata where processors run recursion routines at the trace level
embodying differing and deferring.
Within such a bizarre cellular automata system we see how the stable points
articulate levels of congruence between form and pattern. We can think of the two
combined Spencer-Brown expressions as occurring on a mobius strip. Such a strip
has one edge and one side globally while it has two of each locally. We can write
the two expressions as if they were in fact one expression which interacts with itself
along the edge at every point. On one side of the mobius strip is the tape and on the
other side is the encoded state machine which globally become a single expression
of distinctions. The execution of the mobius computer would occur along the edge
as we jump back and forth by tunnling between memory locations as directed by the
state machine. Such a mobius computing device would continuously be rewriting
its own state machine due to the blur in the distinction between data and program.
The tunneling gotos which represent differAnce occurs along the edge of the
mobius strip. And this tunneling embodiment of time as differAnce would produce
the two proto-imaginaries that Spencer-Brown speaks of which really micro-delays
in entrained wave forms. These two proto-imaginaries become real and imaginary
numeric values held in conjunction at the level where quantity splits from quality.
As we add other computational mobius strips to this one we generate the higher and
higher algebras that emulate autopoietic and reflexive systems.
In this way we would create a mobius landscape from our bizarre two dimensional
cellular automata configuration. We notice that jumping in time occurs along the
edge. This gives us a configuration at the level of complex numbers. When we
combine this computational mobius strip with another one we move to the level of
quaternions and create a klienian bottle. At this point we lose the edge and thus
have no reference point to keep us from getting lost in the differing and deferring.
At this level we have two proto-imaginaries which become the real and three
imaginaries of the quaternions when quality splits from quantity. This is the level
where autopoiesis occurs. We note that at this level we actually have four
independent proto-imaginaries and four independent time streams that are
889
autonomous. Each computational mobius strip has two independent time streams
associated with each Laws of Form expression that has been concatenated into
single mobius strip surface. When we move up one more level to the meta-klienian
bottle we combine four computational mobius strips or two autopoietic systems into
a reflexive social system. At this level there are eight proto-imaginaries and eight
independent time streams. This is the level of the social because at this level the
two autopoietic systems can mirror each other and form a single resonant unity
which transcends the individuals that form the unity. What is remarkable is that this
emergent level is gained by merely adding the two autopoietic machines together,
that is by holding them in conjunction. The eight independent proto-imaginaries
and the eight time lines that are associated with them can be seen in terms of
quantity as the octaves or in terms of quality as the trigrams of qualitative states.
Thus we have produced a picture of how we can create a computational image of
the three special systems stages step at a time. This image does not depend on the
split between quantity and quality but can be seen to exist prior to this split so that
we are talking about proto-imaginaries rather then numerical imaginaries or
qualitative imaginaries. And what are proto-imaginaries? According to Kauffman
they are delay mechanisms that hold constant as long as something else holds
constant and releases slightly after that which they depend upon releases. When we
consider that social systems are entrained and resonant sets of individuals we see
that the imaginaries are the slight delays in entrainments which occur when a
specific global stationary point is released. As Kauffman said to me in a private
communication this can be thought of as the delay between noticing something and
actually perceiving it in a world that co-arises with oneself. Thus there are delays
between co-arising things in their interaction. The imaginaries make these delays
vanish. This takes us back to our theory of time introduced by Ivar Johannson
where he noticed that in order to solve the problem of time we must think of time
going backwards and then being processed forward at each instant. This solves the
problem of how things that are autonomous can become entrained so that they do
not notice the time difference between them necessary for communication. This
point was explored in detail in the first part of On The Social Construction Of
Emergent Worlds. Here we see the proto-imaginary numbers as the points of
reversibility between time going forward and time going backwards. The delays
that naturally occur between co-arising autonomous phenomena are hidden in these
proto-imaginary points so that the unavoidable delays cannot be seen by them.
They appear to be completely resonant with each other from each ones point of
view. But this is an illusion that is supported by the reversiblity of time where each
is processing time backward and then projecting it forward in the instant in order to
890
keep the illusion of perfect harmony going as a sustained illusory continuity. This
illusory continuity is shot through and through with discontinuities in this case with
the discontinuities between the eight proto-imaginaries and the eight independent
time streams that are necessary to keep the illusion in tact at the social level. At the
level of the autopoietic system there are only four proto-imaginary out of time
delays necessary to keep this illusion afloat. Within the computational model of the
dissipative system simulated by the computational mobius strip there is only two
proto-imaginary delays necessary and only two time streams. There is a
reversibility between proto imaginaries and time streams. Thus at the social level
we actually have sixteen duals matched to the sixteen operations of Matrix Logic.
At the quaternion level we have eight duals and at the complex number we have
four duals. The proto-imaginaries represent the current value of the delay and its
opposite. If we look at the totality of values over time as Kauffman and Varela did
then we get the dual time stream. But in the case of the proto-imaginaries we are
talking about the hidden values of stationary points held constant by the
configuration of other points in the system. Those values represent the reversibility
between time moving forward and moving backward within the system. To create
the specious present we must compute backward and then project the gloss of the
backward computation forward as the current value. This is the reverse of Husserl
and Heidegger’s internal structure of time that sees values fade as they are pushed
down on top of other values over time. We read that stack backwards and project
the gloss of that forward as our summation of the next instant. When two
computational mobius strips do that we have an autopoietic system. When four
computational mobius strips or two autopoietic systems do that we have a reflexive
social system. In such a system there is apparent immediate mirroring of a response
from one entrained autonomous agent to the other. But this immediate response of
agents that are in reciprocal complementary entrainment is an illusion that must be
created in a way that bridges over the differences in time caused by communication
delays that cannot be escaped. It means that each must be projecting what the other
will do in the next instant based on a review of what happened in the last series of
specious presents. Both are reviewing what happened and projecting each form his
own history what the other should do and what his response should be. They both
project at about the same time and if they guess correctly the we get apparent
reciprocal action that appears entrained. All the communication delays are hidden
by the dependent co-arising of mutual projection. All the backward analysis of
previous mutual history to come up with the current projection is also hidden. What
we see on the surface of the interaction is the resonance and harmony of the
autonomous agents or within an agent between its different dissipative systems or
891
within a dissipative system between its independent time streams of different order
producing sub-systems. The delays folded into the fabric of time as DifferAnce
made possible by its nature of differing and deferring become invisible in the
maintenance of wider and wider promulgation of the illusion of continuity across
multiple dissipative systems or multiple autonomous living/cognitive creatures.
Once it is possible to entrain two autopoietic systems then it becomes possible to
maintain this entrainment across any number of them and create societies as bearers
of large scale illusions of continuity called systems, meta-systems, domains,
worlds, universes and pluriverses depending on the depth of involvement in the
projected illusory continuity.
There is an undecidability whether the mobius strips are combined into the kleinian
bottle. There is also an undecidability whether the two kleinian bottles are
combined into the meta-kleinian bottle. This undecidability at each stage is the
place where the emergent characteristics of each level open out. Through this
vision we can see how a computational image of the layering of the special systems
might be created using the Spencer-Brown Laws of Form as a basis. In this we see
the that the turing machine may be imagined to be a computational mobius strip
with the tape on one side and the state vector list on the other and using the Laws of
Form formalism as the means of designating the computational structures. When
we create the computational mobius strip we have a single turing machine
equivalent that can model a dissipative system. This is because two recursive
tunneling structures occurs at the edge of the computational mobius strip and these
activation structures can be seen as control orders that are related to each other like
the ordering principles within dissipative systems. When we move on from there
to producing the computational kleinian bottle then we get the combination of two
turing machines into a single meta-structure that is equivalent to two orders of
cellular automata combined into a single edgeless surface. We can see these two
orders as covering each side of the bottle. Thus the two orders merge into a single
computational surface that is locally differentiated into sides. The neck of this
bottle passes through the surface in three dimensions. Thus the surface is self-
interfering. This self-interference can be seen as the point where the surface orders
itself -- coming at itself from nowhere. In four dimensional space the Kleinian
bottle can be constructed such that it does not interfere with itself. So self-
interfering can be turned off so that only the contrast between states on either side
of the bottle surface remain. So there are four states of the computational system at
this level: separate computational mobius strips, mobius strips joined to produce the
pentahedron, mobius strips merged to produce the computational klienian bottle
892
which is self-interfering, and mobius strips joined to produce a computational

kleinian bottle that is not self-interfering. These are the four modes of the
autopoietic system each showing a higher degree of fusion and unity. From there
we can go on to consider what happens when you combine two autopoietic systems
in the meta-kleinian computational bottle at the social level.
13. Laws of Pattern
The pattern language that is the dual of the Laws of Form is trivial in comparison to
the formalism developed by Spencer-Brown. This is probably why he ignored it.
Louis Kaufman said in a private communication that he had dropped studying it
because he considered it uninteresting. However, the Laws of Pattern must be seen
together with the Laws of Form formalism as a necessary whole. Therefore we will
develop the Laws of Pattern here in order to give some flavor of this necessary dual
formalism.
// = repetition equals groundstate
\\ = / cross-recross equals mark
Louis Kaufman says the result of this is a formalism that is indifferent to its interior.
For instance if we have two circles next to each other then this is the same as having
no circle at all. If they are within a circle that is just the same as having only one
circle -- the outer one. If one circle is within the other then that too is the same as
having only one circle -- again the outer one. Indifference to insides is exactly what
we would expect with pattern. Pattern is completely on the surface of the form. It
is only form that creates depth of nesting. But what we trade for depth we gain in
our ability to recognize order. The two axioms serve as recognizers or writers of
marks or blanks that may be used to read patterns or order them. So for instance if
we want to write a series of marks we must feed the writer a series of marks as long
as we want it to not write anything and the when we want it to write something we
reverse across a mark in order to create a difference that makes a difference which
appears as a mark. This means that a pattern writer inverts the meaning of marks
across the boundary of the writing device. If we want to read a pattern then we give
a zero as long as there is a repetition of content but when that repetition changes and
we react to the change then we will read a marker that stands for a difference that
makes a difference in the ordering that is read. Notice that the inversion that we are
talking about causes us to cross the boundaries from one logical type to another.
The highest logical type is the ground state and we refine that into a meta-level by
introducing marks. But as long as we are repeating those marks then we do not
893
distinguish anything. It is only when we move to the next level of logical typing
from the mark to the process that we introduce a distinction at the next lower level
of logical typing. Louis Kaufman says that the cross-recross is equivalent to the
XOR by which we would recognize things in Boolean algebra. The cross-recross
equals mark axiom is the recognizer and the repetition equals groundstate is the
ignoreer. Or we could say writer and don’t write. Either way we need both in order
to do anything interesting with the Laws of Form. They are the door to
operationalizing the Laws of Form. But they do that by ignoring their insides and
that is because they write patterns only on the surface of forms. We can interpret
those patterns as nested forms but we should distinguish between those
interpretations because patterns are not the same as forms. For instance there is in
the example of the string of ones and zeros. The ones and zeros are the pattern
within the form of the string. Our rules could write ones and zeros and we could
interpret them as configurations of marks, crosses, and blanks and thus see in them
the Laws of Form formalism but there is really no depth in the ones and zeros
themselves. Form only appears when there is depth as Spencer-Brown aptly points
out. Thus the one dimensionality of the Laws of Pattern specifically locks into a
superficial space on the surface of things where patterns reside as glosses on
orderings of content. We see the content as marks that are turned on or turned off in
configurations that blend to produce more and more complex orderings. This points
us to structuralism that always reduces to binary differences between categories of
content that are concatenated to form complex structures. In this realm content is
repeated to form homogeneous patches within the ordering and content is varied to
produce variety. What we loose in depth we gain in the opening up of the structural
level within form which is also the same as the semiotic level and the diacritical
level. All repetitions are seen against the goundstate of global diacriticality and all
differences that make a difference are seen against repetition. These three elements
(global diacriticality, repetition, and difference that makes a difference) are the
basis for understanding all orders. Orders must be understood in relation to other
orders within the same form. Does the order fill the groundstate and thus become a
global ordering or does it coexist with other orders in which case there exist
differences that make a difference that create margins between orders and allow
them to be distinguished. Finally there are repetitions of orders to create meta-
patterns within the patterns that in turn produce second order significant differences
and so on as different gestalts are built up. This kaleidoscope of patterns really only
becomes dynamic when we add Goertzel’s operators which allow patterns to cancel
each other out, to act on one another, and form gestalt joins. Think of magicians as
dynamic patterns that live inside the structural/semiotic level rather than as forms.
894
Think of them crossing trace boundaries where annihilation takes place regularly.
They inhabit a world which is always on the surface of things but which is
orthogonal to form stretching into the semiotic so that they arch over the abode of
traces. Because they need to continually cross the discontinuities created by traces
they cannot have continuous processes. They thrive in the flattened out space
where everything has been reduced to information and algorithms that are
themselves reduced to information. Forms need dimensional space whereas
magicians can inhabit texts alone. They create patterns like those flickering light
signs in Times Square in New York directly within the content flattened into
information. The magician system is what gives depth to the Laws of Pattern. The
Laws of Pattern itself lacks all depth. But the magician system takes the content
and patterns it in such a way that takes account of the possibility of traces beyond
the semiotic level and even takes into account the propensities of Wild Being. Thus
what appears flat and without interest becomes very interesting as soon as we
realize that beyond diacriticality and semiotics is the level of traces and beyond that
the level of no trace which all appears mirrored in the content entrapped within the
form that Spencer-Brown ignores. By saying that a name is the same as the thing
named he closes the door to the structural/semiotic layer that actually exists on the
surface of the form not at its depth.
14. General Magicians Theory
We shall begin by making the assumption that all magicians in a magicians system
are themselves composed of swarms of magicians. This conforms with the general
thesis of reflexivity which says that external relations of a social system mirror the
internal relations of the reflexive system. The swarms of magicians operate within
the flattened semiotic space on the surface of form. They connect the Semiotic
level to the Trace and No-Trace levels of content of forms. In doing so they provide
a mechanism to translate content across the breaks in patterns. They also allow us
to find those imaginary fixed points that these transformations revolve around. And
they give us a picture of the pure variety production of Wild Being. GST describes
Forms and their structuralized content. But structuralization is merely the
formation of mini-formalisms to order content. Magician systems do the same
thing -- ordering content -- but without creating the same micro-formalism based on
the assumption of continuity. We do not even have the continuity of process over
time signified by Spencer-Brown’s cross-recross mechanism. Instead at most we
have only time as the differing and deferring of DifferAnce. Magicians are ordering
mechanisms for content that operate at the sign, trace and no-trace levels within the
895
illusory continuity of ideation. They are not forms. So we can see why they came
to the forefront for Goertzel when he radically reduced Form to Pattern reversing
the normal bias toward formalisms over ordering devices.
This crucial understanding of the nature of magician mechanisms allows us to

construct a general theory based on everything we have said in the foregoing. We
would be making a mistake to model magician systems as if they were forms.
Forms have nesting and depth even if written on a plane. General Systems Theory
describes forms and their ordering by which dynamic systems can be modeled. But
when we move from General Systems Theory to the special systems we move to a
flat world in which information is encoded and embedded. That flattening takes a
series of stages which we associate with the different special systems and which is
differentiated by the recognition of more and more complex congruency relations
and by the appearance of more and more fixed points at the trace level where forms
disappear into potentia. We can see forms arising out of the plane of potentia and
going though their epigenesis only two fade back into it again at the end. So we can
think of the action of magician systems as taking place directly on the surface of the
unconscious with the firsts that arise from the unconscious as contents. As such the
magician systems are the pivots between the symmetricality of the unconscious and
the asymmetricality of the conscious. We can see that because with them
symmetricality gradually breaks down step by step. First the inverting twist of the
complex numbers intervenes and then we lose the ability to reverse actions to return
to where we were and then we lose the ability to rely on associations. As we do so
we move away from symmetry but only in the surface of the firsts which are
arising. As yet no forms are produced by the build up of GST with the advent of the
different orderings. Not even any viewpoints that might take us away from the
plane of the unconscious have arisen such as the Functional or the Agent
viewpoints. All that exists is the Catalyst viewpoints that is all encompassing and
directly oriented toward seeing only firsts alone. So if we think of general magician
systems as operating in the plane of the manifestation of the unconscious contents
as firsts and GST as handling anything that arises out of that plane the we can
understand why magician systems have not been noticed before. We are normally
not looking directly at flat unconscious contents as pure patterns. But if we did we
would see that they are described precisely by magician systems and their three
operators. The annihilation operators describe the orthogonal discontinuities
between contents arising from the unconscious. The action operators describe
disjointed actions of individual magicians as they attempt to regain symmetry at the
level of the autopoietic system. The gestalt operator sets up associations between
896
the contents forming gestalts. It is these gestalts we see in our fantasies or dreams
as configurations of contents that are recognizable. But it is only when you start
adding ordering to the contents that we can begin to build up forms and understand
their dynamics structurally. The gestalts may be metonymical and not therefore
ordered. It is ordered gestalts that become forms and are understood structurally.
What does this mean? It means that the surface of the unconscious can be seen from
the point of view of a dissipative system, or an autopoietic system, or at last as a
social reflexive system. And this makes sense too. We know that the unconscious
is the domain of symmetry which is very strong ordering. It is ordering contents so
strongly as to make them invisible. But we also know that there is a hidden counter
ordering which we generally associate with the unconscious where it creates
divergences in the pattern of the contents of consciousness. This is what we
normally think of as the unconscious -- as a source of disturbance or counter
ordering to the normal ordering of the asymmetries of consciousness. And we
associate this with what Henry calls the Essence of Manifestation, or pure
immanence that can only be seen by its disturbing side effects in manifestation.
This is equivalent to the notion of the ID or the individual unconscious that causes
forgetfulness, strange associations, dreams, and other contra-ordered psychic
phenomena. We will note that the autopoietic system is closed and exhibits some of
these same effects that the unconscious exhibits. When we create an autopoietic
unity we are creating along with it its unconscious which means its hidden aspect
that no observer can have access to. These unconscious aspects can only appear in
behavior. By definition anything that appears in relation to cognition is conscious.
So it is the disparity between action, even imaging action or the action of speaking
that inconsistencies arise that reveal the individuated unconscious. But we can go
on to the social level and see how at that level the intersubjective or collective
unconscious arises as the hidden aspect of the social group. We see the collective
unconscious in the actions of groups. So we see it when we combine actions with
associations. So when we look at the surface of the unconscious itself we see that it
can be seen in terms of ordering and disordering, in terms of asymmetrical action,
or in terms of associations and a level of the unconscious is associated with each.
If we consider the surface of the unconscious as a whole we see that it has patches
where contents are rising and falling. All those patches are orthogonal to each other
and they represent some asymmetry with in consciousness either opening up or
closing. For each patch we can imagine an ordering principle enacted by some
magician system inhabiting the surface of the unconscious itself. When we
897
consider the competition of the ordering principles they appear as dissipative

systems that Deleuze and Guattari call Desiring Machines. At the dissipative level
the desiring machine might correspond to a part of the body or some other
obsessional partial object. However, we might see those ordering systems in
relation to the actions they produce in which case they are seen as the mechanism of
the machine rather than in terms of the content that is the focus for the machine. At
such a level many minds appear as inhabiting the surface of the unconscious. But
the many minds form a society of the mind that exemplifies many features of the
social like emergence. The unconscious is the place from which new things come
par excellence. It is the society of the mind that provides the underlying imaginary
continuity for consciousness. But if we dive through the surface of the unconscious
we realize that it is the access point to many consciousnesses because it is in reality
the overlapping of the unconscious of many individuals from the same society.
Thus it is as if the social unconscious were a tunneling point from individual to
individual from within them all. As such it provides the basis of all the individuals
and the society which they make up as well. Thus the unconscious can be seen as
the reflexive point at which all the individuals within a society mirror each other
internally and externally. When any of us looks at another from our society we are
looking at the face of the collective unconscious and when we look within ourselves
we see at our depths everybody else within our society as a many headed monster
like Scylla or the Hydra. Our every word and action must be negotiated in relation
to this internal representation of everyone. This dance with many partners goes on
many times unconsciously but sometimes consciously in relation to the idea of the
“Generalized Other” as G.H. Mead would say.
The concept that magician systems inhabit the surface of the unconscious and not
the conscious realm itself has interesting repercussions. It tells us that magician
systems are useless on their own without some kind of GST formalism to create
their backdrop. But it tells us that by adding Magician systems to our GST models
we are adding a formalism that is capable of modeling the unconscious in its
various depths. Thus though it operates on the surface it projects a deeper depth
than the formal system can do alone. In fact from the point of view of the magician
system the formal system is merely the surface of things and the magician system
shows us a way to model the deeper aspects of manifestation. But the two surfaces
are orthogonal so if you are looking at form you do not see the patterns of content
arising as firsts from the unconscious. This is one of the reasons that it has taken so
long for magician systems to arise and be formalized as the dual to GST.
898
Instead of thinking of the unconscious it is possible to formulate the position of the

Magician systems in terms of paradoxicality instead. We can see that GST
formulates non-paradoxical images of systems which attempt to isolate themselves
from paradoxicality. Paradoxicality can be seen as a vortex that once we enter we
cannot easily extricate ourselves. We can see magician systems as inhabiting the
surface of that vortex of paradoxicality instead of the surface of the unconscious.
The development of the special systems attempt to constrain that vortex and yet get
as close as possible without falling into it and getting lost. Dissipative systems
allow us to look at the boundary of paradoxicality as a boundary with radical
disorder that is incomprehensible. Russel attempted to erase paradoxicality via his
theory of logical types. His attempt merely allows us to define it more rigorously
but does not rid our universe of discourse of that possibility. Autopoietic systems
even more rigorously constrain and define the paradoxes surrounding the definition
of life and cognition. And finally the Reflexive systems allow us to constrain and
define it further with the concept of the social and the emergent. In constraining
and defining the paradoxicality further and further we produce a model of
paradoxicality within our universe of discourse that we can live with. But
ultimately that means converting some paradoxes into theories that mirror the
structure of those paradoxes. Autopoiesis and Reflexive theories play this role. By
learning to live with paradox but by avoiding falling completely into it we follow a
middle route that accepts the limits of reason. The center of the vortex of
paradoxicality is the unthinkable, the enigmatic without an answer. This has been
interpreted in our series of meta-levels of Being as what lies beyond the fourth
meta-level where meta-level five should be but isn’t --- that is non-experiential and
non-conceptual emptiness. As we define paradoxicality closer and closer we rise
though the meta-levels of Being toward emptiness. As we do that we realize that
the vortex of paradoxicality is maintained by ideation and is in fact when ideation
attempts to turn back on itself. That is the definition of Ontological Monism --
transcendence attempting to ground itself. Ideation is composed of Form plus Sign
plus Trace plus No-Trace. Thus when Ideation turns back in on itself these strata
each become like mobius strips in their attempt to bootstrap themselves within the
heart of the vortex of paradoxicality. In that process they begin producing
imaginary values which allow paradox to stand within illusory continuity. So when
we step toward the center of the vortex of paradox we necessarily move through the
levels where form attempts to ground itself as it does within Spencer-Brown’s Laws
of Form, then at the structural-semiotic level content attempts to ground itself, and
finally at the level of traces or the wave-like image of form traces attempt to ground
themselves. Finally beyond cancellation this self-grounding falls apart and that is
899
when the level of Wild Being has been attained. Beyond Wild Being is only
Emptiness. Within the surface of the vortex of paradoxicality we can see magician
systems as the progressive means of modeling the paradoxical relations between
signs, traces and the lack of traces. Magician systems do not assume continuity so
they have no problem modeling the kind of nonsequitor jumps that express
paradoxicality. Magician rules can be completely paradoxical without being wrong
because they do not assume there are any continuities to be preserved. Continuity
production is a side-effect in some cases not an assumption or prerequisite in
magician systems. Therefore paradoxical magician systems are one natural class of
these kinds of systems. Self-contradictions in fact must be produced in order for
annihilations to occur within the magician systems. But these systems also model
non-commutative mutual actions of asymmetries and also the non-associative
metonymical gestalts. It models these aspects of paradoxicality: not just self-
cancelling contradiction, but also disjoint incomprehensible actions and impossible
associations. In other words it produces a deeper and deeper model of the
paradoxicality excluded from form and extends form to the level of signs, traces,
and lack of any traces in order to attempt to allow theory to resolve or at least live
with paradox without self-destruction. Ultimately paradox is a wild and untamable
sickness of thought unwisely thinking itself (reflexion) instead of stopping thought
(reflection). We can attempt to learn to ride this wild tornado of involuting thought
but ultimately self-destruction lies in this direction. Ontological Monism --
Transcendence grounding itself is an impossibility. It explodes into the Process of
Transcendence which then reveals behind the scenes the Essence of Manifestation
(Ontological Dualism) and finally splinters into a million pieces at the level of Wild
Being in which a myriad local ontologies arise and compete and where immanence
and transcendence are mixed and become undifferentiated. As we focus in layer by
layer on the surface of paradoxicality, realizing that it is the embodiment of the
limit of the Clearing in Being, that is the boundary of our world, we see that it is the
special systems theories that allow us to define this ungraspable boundary ever
more closely and carefully. The first stage of paradoxicality has to do with order
and thus fits our models of the dissipative system, the second stage of
paradoxicality has to do with action and so fits our models of the autopoietic
system, and the third stage of paradox has to do with association and thus fits our
models of the social reflexive system. In other words we first see that
paradoxicality leads to antinomies as Kant realized in his Critique Of Pure Reason.
But if we look beyond Antinomies we find that paradox also deals with
displacements that are counter-intuitive that can be seen in terms of action and in
fact rotations. These can be seen as the strange rotations that define the dialectic,
900
rotations through higher dimensions that allow the different to become the same and
vice versa such as appear in Hegel’s philosophy and serve to define absolute reason
as the reason within the concrete things rather than the reason of the antinomies.
And finally once we get beyond the rotations we realize that most paradox can be
reduced to reflections and mirrorings that are seen without action and that distort
things mirrored and their relations. Beyond that is incomprehensible complexity,
non-computablity and chaos which eventually leads to the formulation of the
unthinkable. Each of our special systems allows us to zero in on an aspect of
paradox and define it more and more closely before we lose control completely,
before things get our of hand. As we zero in on paradox we realize that new things
come into existence through paradox. In fact we recognize that all genuine
emergences must go through all four meta-levels of Being as they enter our world
from out of the Void. These meta-levels of Being define progressively the ultimate
paradoxicality of the utterly new within the Western worldview. All other
paradoxes between existing things must be subsumed into the paradox between
Being in all its kinds and Non-Being. The levels of Being allow us to define this
ultimate paradoxicality in successive states. When we consider a form that exists
then we can see it related step by step to this ultimate paradoxicality of its
emergence as a completely new thing. In these steps the levels of the sign and the
trace appear. And within traces there are definite levels where configurations of
imaginaries are produced which define the thresholds of complexity of the special
systems. These levels of complexity of trace patterns allow us to define
paradoxicality closer and closer before we lose control completely and fall into the
vortex that spirals around the void.
15. Conclusion
This paper makes some major advances in the conceptualization of the Special
Systems in relation to the General Systems Theory (GST). First we build up GST
by introducing orders of different kinds one step at a time. Then we find that the
Magician Systems proposed by Goertzel has some precedence in the work on the
mathematics of pattern by Grenander. Magician systems themselves are the
orthogonal dual to General Systems Theory. They encompass all three levels of
Special Systems having operations that exhibit the emergent properties of these
systems. We also find that the analogies proposed in the first part of this series of
essays between hypercomplex algebras and the three kinds of special systems:
dissipative, autopoietic and social occur because there are a species of proto-
imaginary values that arise at the trace meta-level which serve as stationary points
901
for symmetries at the meta-levels of sign and form. Understanding the relation
between these proto-imaginaries and the numerical imaginaries allows us to see
how the existence of the analogies point to a deeper correspondence between
systems of all types that operates at this meta-level of Being called Hyper Being.
This correspondence has been discovered by a study of Spencer-Brown’s Laws of
Form to which we have found a dual Laws of Pattern formalism which
demonstrates the complementarity of the Form to Pattern. August Stearn’s Matrix
Logic is shown to be the overarching formalism that encompasses these two
formalisms and extensions to the kinds of truth beyond true and false are discovered
in two orthogonal directions. Traces naturally arise as the interference between
Form and Pattern ways of looking at things. In general this paper deepens and
substantiates the analogies posited in the first part of this series of essays between
levels of hypercomplex algebras and the special systems: dissipative, autopoietic
and social/reflexive that emerge from General Systems Theory.
902
prajna {Buddhism}, wisdom traceless difference5 a decernment of a decision on a dircrimination

source of meaning trackless emptiness
lostness unthinkable
uch touching {Merleau-Ponty}

no trace difference4 a decision on a discrimination of a demarcation
nscription in the flesh {Deluze}
chiasm {Merleau-Ponty} palimpsest Being4 interference between traces
reversibility labyrinth
what appears after cancellation of traces
arche-writing trace difference3 a discrimination of a demarcation
n, essence, beginning {erasure} discreteness the indenture of the line in the paper beyond the m
hinge differance Being3
reserve Grammatology, the science of traces
spacing
writing/speech sign difference2 a distinguished distinction or a demarcation
origin, essence, beginning system & structure
text production Being2 a difference that makes a difference {G. Bateson}
sformation across discontinuities noesis/noema relevance, significance, varities, kinds
mark, code
book, paragraph, sentence etc. form difference1 a distinction, threshold, variation of the variation
scourse, rhetoric, presentation morphe Being1 outlines of things, laws of form {G. Spencer-Brow
letter, picture, word duality, transcendence, domination
colors, tints, hues, tones, styles content difference0 variation, heterogeniety, undistinguished, indeter
mood hyle beings, Being0 indistinct, indecisive, indiscernible, indiscriminat
cleared, cleaned, leveled tablet anti-difference plenum of pure difference {homogeniety = hetero
prepared surface the writing surface no difference suppression of variety
the clean slate no-thing
genocide, ethnic cleansing blank sheet indifference differences that make no difference
hewn identity nihilistic landscape produced
partially ordered texture sameness selected variety, minimal modification of what is f

arranged, fitted together rough hewn"things," social entitiesno excluded middle, prior to identity
garden the They, das Mann all things embedded in the social fabric
natural variety resources alterity unsuppressed discovered unadulterated variety

unordered, unarranged natural complexes otherness deep ecology
unhewn materials alien TABLE 1
903
Heaven
nowhere
structuralized external boundary
form with environment
View Point
Ordering Principle
Observer
interacts with
singularity boundary
FORM PATTERN
gloss gloss
Order Disorder
Temporal Gestalt
asymmetries Process Being
Now Point
Pure Presence
PATTERN
interference
TRACE
FORM identity
appearing vanishing
Symmetries
EARTH
annihilation
cancellation
propensities
Hyper Being
tendencies
Wild Being differing deferring
Disordering Principle
DifferAnce
Exhibit 1
904
Idealized Formal-Structural Dynamic System
control
Structural
Form
synthesis
Essence Integra
N^2 2^N
Quantity Process Being Quality
eidetic or synergetic
Intuition
Noesis
FORM PATTERN
gloss on disorder gloss on order
seen on background seen on background
of order of disorder
Hyle
pure content
repression
Noematic Nucleus
“the thing itself”
905
Exhibit 2
906

Part 3: Anti-Category theory, Annihilation Mosaics,
Magician Constellations, and Mythic Foundations.

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. Abstract
This paper attempts to explore the meaning of Magician meta-systems.The concept

of a mathematical Anti-Category is used as a basis for exploring Annihilation
Mosaics which are seen to be the anti-category to which Magician meta-systems
(constellations) belong. The question of how Magician meta-systems express
causality between discontinuous momentary universes is breached. The
orthogonality between Magician constellations and General Systems Theory is
defined ontologically. Then some possible mythological foundations for Magician
meta-systems are explored.
2. Keywords
General Systems Theory, Autopoietic Systems, Dissipative Systems, Social Systems, Ontology, Algebras,
Complex Numbers, Quaternions, Octonions, Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Psychology, Sociology, Social Theory,
Computational Theory.
Copyright 1994 Kent D. Palmer. All Rights Reserved. Pre-publication draft. Not for distribution.
Draft#3 941003 Total pages: 987; Date of this copy: Monday, February 19, 2007; File name: STTS3V04.FM
3. A Search for a Theory of Annihilation
Grenander suggests that homeomorphisms and annihilations are incompatible. If

this is so then we posit that there must be an anti-category theory that is the dual of
908
mathematical category theory that addresses annihilation as a phenomena. We

know annihilation is a phenomena of pure reason as Kant showed us with his
antinomies and we know that it happens in nature with fundamental particles. But
if it violates the basic assumptions of homeomorphic category theory then there
must be a kind of mathematics that describes pure annihilation systems. We can
understand how annihilation violates homeomorphic views of things and thus most
mathematical views when we realize that annihilation contravenes the fundamental
assumption of commutativeness of arrows that category theory is built upon. Thus
like we reverse the arrows in category theory we can interchange the arrows for
discontinuities and disregard the commutativeness of arrows in order to discover
anti-category theory that describes annihilation. In the thesis of the author called
The Structure Of Theoretical Systems In Relation To Emergence (1982) this was
called the “logic of discontinuity” for it means we must not only break the arrows of
mappings but also question our most basic assumptions of logic as well. Such a
system at its root does not assume the continuity of things in existence but instead
assumes their discontinuity. This does not mean that everything vanishes but
instead it means that a very specific set of practices and proto-formal elements
replace category theory with which we describe annihilation systems.
Magician systems posited by Goertzel have as their first assumption the possibility
of annihilation which says that there is discontinuity in the world, discontinuities
across which perhaps we cannot map. If we can map across the discontinuites then
we can use category theory if there are different ways to cross the set of
discontinuities that are equal. However if different paths across coordinated sets of
discontinuities take you to different places or if we lose the ability to map
completely then we drop into an anti-category theory where commutativeness of
arrows is no longer true or where mappings across discontinuities become
impossible. Goertzel’s Magicians call for the development of this anti-category
theory and the theory of a specific kind of anti-category called an annihilation
theory.
It is difficult to call the object of annihilation theory “systems” because the object
itself may not have the coherence of a gestalt. Therefore we will adopt the term
“constellation” from Adorno or “mosaic” from Benjamin to describe these anti-
categories. And we will ask what an annihilation mosaic is composed of. It is clear
that it is not an empty set because things that annihilate actually come into existence
and then go back out of existence. But there coming into existence does not assume
continuity either of form or of process. Instead we are operating at a meta-level of
909
Being where traces reside beneath forms and signs. This is the realm where our
objects have what is called Hyper Being by Merleau-Ponty and DifferAnce by
Derrida. Heidegger called it Being (crossed out) and specifically recognized it as
the cancellation of the Nothingness of Sartre and his own concept of Process Being
which were antinomic opposites that annihilated each other. Thus an annihilation
mosaic must have at least the articulation necessary in order to come into Being
long enough to cancel itself out. Such a mosaic might be very complex and that
complexity might articulate momentarily in a cascade of cancellation. Thus
annihilation mosaics are not held away from manifestation but are experienced as a
process of self-destruction. Let us note that self-destruction is the opposite of self-
maintenance and self-organization so such mosaics are the mirror opposite of
autopoietic systems. Self-destruction forms the nihilistic dual of self-organization.
We can only understand and locate autopoietic systems because there is a
background of self-destruction which provides the necessary contrast to recognize
the difference between them. Self-destruction appears as the cancellation of
nihilistic opposites -- opposites which are extreme caricatures which are found to be
in continual conflict. The continual conflict of nihilistic opposites provides the
backdrop against which the perfect autopoietic form stands out appearing in the
guise of the perpetual motion machine -- an apparent impossibility -- and ideal
harmonic resonance that rarely appears against the dark background of war and
anti-production. Against these we posit allopoietic and other-destroyed systems.
We take as our paradigm for the annihilation mosaic the virtual particles that appear
beneath the threshold of the conservation laws. They appear momentarily only to
destroy themselves by annihilating each other. Empty space is full of such virtual
particles. It is not an empty plenum but a seething morass of virtual particles being
created and destroyed. Annihilation mosaics appear out of the Void and quickly
disappear back into the Void. Like fire works at night they might form very
complex momentary patterns before vanishing full of interactions between the
virtual particles. One way of computing such interactions is though the use of
Goertzel’s idea of Magician systems that have complex interaction which
determines in part the next manifestation of the system. Here when we say
“system” we really mean “meta-system.” Since system means a gestalt then a meta-
system might be called a proto-gestalt. The proto-gestalt is the place from which
multiple gestalts emanate. There does not seem to be a word for a meta-system so
we will use the word “constellation” we have borrowed from Adorno to specifically
indicate the meta-system and proto-gestalt of a mosaic. If we use the fire works
display as a metaphor we might say that a Magician mosaics interact in such a way
910
to influence their structure when they reappear on the other side of the annihilation
discontinuity. As they do so they define the constellation or the meta-system which
lies at the source of all the gestalts that do appear. So like fire works displays there
is a sequence of different patterns written on the Void that we see in succession
after the embers of each display die out. The Magician system can be seen as the
inscribers of those patterns which define the proto-gestalt though the continuities
that are apparent from display to display in the whole sequence that makes up the
total display. These inscribers interact in such a way as to influence what the next
set of inscribers or weavers are going to inscribe or weave. In this way we can see
that what manifests is not divorced from what does not manifest but there is a subtle
influence of each on each. There is no guarantee that what the Magicians decide
among themselves by voting will be what appears in the next moment. Wild cards
can be added prior to annihilation or when the new set of Magicians appear at the
next moment. Wild card Magicians that appear out of nowhere and change the
structure of the annihilations in a particular moment are produced directly out of the
unconscious or the unmanifest as an exception. They can influence the composition
of the next display and change the inscriptions that are made. They emanate from
the proto-gestalt -- from the constellation itself which together acts socially as its
own filter.
When we look at this model we see that all the arguments concerning continuity
with respect to karmic causality that are applied to the Tathagatha Gharba by the
Buddhists apply to this Magician meta-system. The Buddhists in describing the
Womb of Thusness-coming as a means of understanding the operation of karma in a
universe created and destroyed in each moment said that seeds for the next creation
of the universe were laid down in the alaya vijyana or store house consciousness in
the Tathagata Gharba which is equivalent to our Proto-Gestalt that appears at the
level of the meta-system. The action from instant to instant was described in terms
of “perfuming” or in terms of subtle influence much like Goertzel’s collusions
between Magicians. In our case the Magicians themselves become these seeds and
these seeds upon activation inscribe patterns within forms or weave patterns in the
fabric of spacetime. They also interact and socially determine who will be existing
in the next moment by each of them casting votes in terms of virtual or nominated
future Magicians. These annihilate each other to see who survives. In the
annihilation process the social filter may throw in a wild card or two to skew the
results of the annihilation process. Notice that society must always be seen
primarily as the meta-system containing systems of groups or individuals. Those
who survive will become seeds for the next moment where spawning will happen
911
again over and over. Each spawning like a display in a fire works program will see
inscription and mutual action and associations and finally annihilation. Whether a
Magician group is considered a system or meta-system hinges on whether the whole
group is destroyed between each spawning or not. This means they go through a
phase of conversion to potentiality between moments of manifestation. In those
moments of potentiality they interact with the proto-gestalt and this allows them to
inscribe based on their interaction with the sources of things the new pattern which
will arise in the next moment. The reason to be interested in Magician
Constellations is that they are a good model of Chaotic processes and render them
quantum computable. They can do that because they assume discontinuity instead
of continuity as do most systems models.
Thus we have eight subjects with which we need to deal:
1) Anti-Category Theory.
2) Annihilation Mosaics.
3) Meta-systems or Proto-Gestalts called Constellations.
4) and a specific kind of Constellation called a Magician system.
5) How Karmic Causality works in Magician Constellations
6) The computational basis of Magician systems
7) The orthogonality of Magician meta-systems to GST.
8) Mythological precursors to Magician systems.
These subjects attempt to approach the roots of Magician systems as constellations

and mosaics. Prior to this they have been considered as systems which is to say
gestalts. Our tendency to see everything as systems tends to obscure certain more
subtle phenomena in existence. But step by step we have been led to the trace level
of phenomena where we have discovered the stable points which give us our
analogies to the dissipative, autopoietic and social systems. Finally we discovered
that Magicians could not be reduced to an algebraic formulation but instead made
operators out of the emergent properties of each of these systems. Thus it became
clear that Magicians were not systems but meta-systems. They were not algebras
but meta-algebras in which case they indicated proto-gestalts with their weaving of
traces. As meta-algebras we must consider them the “inner product” of complex,
quaternion, and octave algebras produced from the combination of their emergent
912
properties. This led us to ask what annihilation is and Grenander pointed out that
annihilation contravened the laws of homeomorphism that Category theory is based
on. So we have to return to category theory, that elegant and subtle basis for
understanding the relations between the categories of Mathematics, and try to
understand its dual anti-category theory which forms the basis of understanding
non-categories like annihilation mosaics and eventually allow us to understand
Magician constellations (meta-algebras). Along the way we will consider the
means by which Karmic Causality works and the computational basis for Magician
meta-systems. Finally we would like to ask about the metaphysical and
mythological basis of Magician systems.
4. Anti-Category Theory
Category theory is the foundation for understanding many aspects of mathematics

and logic. It is extremely elegant in that it allows us to dispense with the specific
kinds of objects of a category and represent only the relations between objects as
mappings or arrows. But its basic assumption is that mappings can be performed
and that between different mappings there is functional level commutativeness. In
other words different paths you might take via mappings are equal. What is
interesting is that the actual arrows themselves must satisfy associative and identity
properties and the diagrams commute. What we see here is that it is not the
elements that satisfy the associative and commutative properties but the arrows.
Thus category theory is a meta-system that can apply to many systems of entities by
dealing only with arrows and by applying the identity, associative and commutative
properties to the arrows and not the elements. This is very elegant and subsumes all
of mathematics and even logic in fact every system that assumes continuity of
mappings. But what we notice is that where the commutative and associative
properties may not apply to elements they apply to arrows within the categories of
mathematics. And it is the value of this way of looking at things that it allows us to
construct functors that relate sets of arrows in one category to other sets of arrows in
other categories. So we can see the similarities between different branches of
mathematics. Also it allows us to realize the power of duality because by reversing
arrows we gain the proof of the dual of a theorem. But we also note that it is exactly
the associative and the commutative properties that we lose as we move up the
ladder of special systems. Thus when we are operating at the highest level with the
strongest Magician constellation we actually have to step outside category theory.
Magician systems are meta-systems as well but do not preserve either commutative
or associative property at the meta-system level. So if we are going to understand
913
these kinds of meta-systems we will need something other than category theory as
the basic mathematical underpinning of this special type of annihilation mosaic
called the Magician constellation.
Now to produce the dual all we actually need to do is deny the axioms of category
theory and we have anti-category theory. So first of all we deny the associativeness
of arrows and then we deny identity of arrows and finally we deny the
commutativeness of composed diagrams of arrows. The question is whether we
have anything left when we have done that. In order to answer that question we will
have to note that by producing an anti-category theory that exists at the meta-system
level we are actually pushing to the meta-meta-system level. In a previous paper
we have called meta-meta-systems “domains” within the ontological emergent
hierarchy. This is a realm one step away from a world and that exists between
meta-systems and worlds as a logical emergent layer. We can say that within a
domain there exists a category theory meta-system and an anti-category meta-
system. These cancel each other by destroying each others assumptions. To us as
people obsessed with continuity the anti-category within the domain seems to
embody every thing negative. However, we must consider that negative
phenomena like anomalies do exist within domains so that an anti-category theory
may actually have some validity at least to explain anomalies and other singularities
that do not fit into systems or even systems of systems. These anomalies may
appear within systems of systems of systems. Anomalies that cannot be reduced by
systems or meta-systems are fairly recalcitrant. They exist in the world but cannot
be explained by any system or meta-system within the world. We know that such
objects exist and in fact they are usually the object of intense investigation which
attempts to reduce them. Sometimes it takes a paradigm shift to be able to account
for them. Sometimes it takes what Foucault calls an episteme change, that is a
change in the fundamental categories of knowledge. Sometimes it takes a different
interpretation of Being as Heidegger calls the similar epochal shifts at the
ontological level. In any case such anomalies are normally the source of genuinely
emergent events within the worldview. Thus we do not want to discard them
because they are very important to a worldview such as ours that is obsessed with
new things.
So we can see that anti-category theory will be about emergent things at the domain
ontological level. These are the things we have not mapped yet or do not fit our
current mappings. On our maps we say dragons and monsters lurk here or we allow
them to fade into the paper revealing our ignorance or we just make up the outline
914
of some dark continent. Sometimes speculation is the ideal way to conjure new
landscapes into existence such as the ones we are exploring here. The anomalies
are the things we are struggling to understand as opposed to the things that are
already understood. In previous work of the author (Dissertation: The Structure of
Theoretical Systems in Relation to Emergence 1982 LSE) it has been shown that
the genuinely emergent phenomena have to move through the four meta-levels of
Being in order to manifest within the clearing of Being that is the world. As they do
so they may change the worldview to make recalcitrant anomalies and theoretical
singularites comprehensible within a new worldview. It is the possibility of anti-
category theory that preserves this possibility of the entry of the emergent event into
the world as it allows for anomalies not subsumed by any system or meta-system.
So we can see that anti-category theory is not unimportant to our worldview in spite
of the fact it exists in the shadow of mathematical category theory.
But what can we say of anti-category theory? If we deny the commutative and
associative laws as well as the identity laws then is there anything left except a
morass of Chaos? Well, Chaos has become a very important phenomena in modern
physics and mathematics. And we see Magician systems are specifically designed
to render chaos not only modelable but also computable. Thus we have indeed
entered the realm of chaos when we began to think of anti-category theory. But
physicists and mathematicians have found that chaos is not “mere disorder” and in
fact it has found mathematical constants that it obeys. So Chaos is not totally
incomprehensible. It is a mixture of order and disorder which sometimes gives very
beautiful qualitative patterns as we see in the Mandelbrot set and other chaotic
pattern generators. Therefore, we must consider as the ancients did that Chaos is
the primordial soup from which the forms emerge and it is a positive phenomena
not something non-existent or negative. In ancient China it was called Hun-Tun. In
ancient Greece it was the first goddess. For us following Peirce it is the realm of the
bubbling up of Firsts into existence like the morass of virtual particles being created
and destroyed in the space that underlies the particles that are conserved. Thus we
can say that Firsts without Seconds, or relations, definitely belong to the anti-
category theory. If we can create relations then we have mappings. But not all
mappings are perfectly continuous. So if we have Seconds that are broken then
they also would enter into anti-category theory. And what about Perice’s Thirds?
These are the significances that grow up from composing relations, the meanings of
the diagrams in category theory. Well if these were partial meanings, incomplete or
inchoate then we might even be able to include them as well. Now it becomes clear
that anti-category theory concerns the constellation of Firsts as a meta-system, that
915
which cannot quite be rendered as a gestalt, and partial relations and partial
significances. We might say relations and significances that are sticking half out of
the Void and so we cannot actually define them completely. What is interesting is
that Firsts alone as pure sensation cannot be seen. So without relations and
significances Firsts would remain invisible to the theoretical gaze of the totalizing
and totalized subject. Thus Hun-Tun is very difficult to see. We call him unhewn
in as much as definite hewn lines of demarcation cannot be drawn for him. He can
be hemmed in using fuzzy methods however and in fact this makes us wonder if
anti-category theory could as a first approximation be defined as the category of
fuzzy relations under the caveat that associativeness and commutativeness of
diagrams may not hold. In fact, these properties themselves become fuzzy tending
toward non-existence within anti-category theory. This makes sense because the
logico-mathematics of the level of traces is Fuzzy Sets and Logic. A fuzzy arrow is
one that varies in possibility between existence and non-existence as well as
between truth and falsehood besides its fuzziness in relation to reaching its target or
departing from its source. The truth scale follows the kinds of truth that August
Stern ascribes to Matrix Logic. We see that each fuzzy arrow has four scales of
fuzziness.
Figure 142:
existence
0 >>>>>>>>>> 1
FUZZY SOURCE A -------------------> B FUZZY TARGET
0 >>>>>>>>> 1 0 >>>>>>>>>> 1 0 >>>>>>>>> 1
truth
The sources and the targets are Firsts arising independently out of the Void.
If all these values are “one” then the limit of normal category theory is achieved.
But how about the composition of arrows? We must also have a fuzzy association
and a fuzzy commutativeness for arrows as well as their identity in order to have a
complete anti-category theory.
Axiom One For Normal Category Theory1
For any three (not necessarily distinct) objects A, B, C of K, three are given
functions
K(A,B) X K(B,C) --> K(A,C):
1.Arrows Structures and Functors by Arbib and Manes page 30
916
f g f.g
(A ---> B), B ---> C) ==> A -----> C
called composition which satisfy the associative axiom that for all objects A, B, C,
D of K and all morphisms f in K(A,B), g in K(B,C) and h in K(C,D) we have h.(g.f)
= (h.g).f: A ----> D.
We notice that a composition is a meta-relation between at least three relations. It

is through the composition of Seconds that Thirdness is produced which are
significances. Now we have noticed that all these relations may be made fuzzy as
to their source, target, existence and truth. But fuzzy associativeness would have to
do with making the composition itself fuzzy in relation to other compositions. So if
we substitute the fuzzy composition “&” for the definite composition “.” then we
will have effected a fuzzy transformation that will allow fuzzy thirds to appear out
of the background of all possible meta-relations between relations
Axiom Two For Normal Category Theory1
For every object A of K, the set K(A,A) contains (possibly among other morphisms)
a special morphism idA, called the identity of A, with the property that for every
object B of K, and for all f e K (A,B) and g e K(B,A) we have
idA f f
A -----> A ---> B = A ---> B
and
g idA g
B ---> A -----> A = B ---> A
Here to we might replace identity “id” with fuzzy identity “fid” and render our
ability to isolate any particular First and project an arrow back on it with confidence
suspect. The complete fuzziness of the identity makes self-determination and
definition of anything the anti-category theory is applied to tentative at best.
Both fuzzy composition “&” and fuzzy identity “fid” may be given values between
zero and one to show the degree of confidence in the operation and its
associativeness. When we compose diagrams then we would also make fuzzy the
ability to interchange paths with impunity. Whole paths within diagrams might be
1.Arrows Structures and Functors by Arbib and Manes page 30]
917
marked as to there fuzzy commutativeness in relation to other paths. In this way we

render ourselves able to deal with the partiality of relations and significances and
still make it possible to fall into the two limit cases of complete anti-categorical
dispersion where all values are zero and complete adherence to mathematical
category theory where all values are one.
It may not be nice and neat like category theory but it does show that anti-category
theory is a definite theoretical possibility as an addition to mathematics. And this is
all we are trying to show. We do not intend to develop such a monster but it is
enough to show that this monster exists in order to render our project worthy of
consideration.
What is interesting is that between the unhewn where fuzziness is greatest and the
hewn where fuzziness is least we may define now the rough hewn as some optimal
median fuzziness in anti-category theory. The rough hewn is the ideal extent of
determinateness and we might use the golden mean to define it or some other
optimal middle figure that represents balance and harmony. If things are too
definite they lose meaning. However, we are uncomfortable if indefiniteness
dominates definiteness. Thus, we postulate that there is a golden mean of
definiteness that is optimal to preserve meaning yet produce the assurance of
patterned order. This golden mean of definiteness is very important because it
defines the edge of the Void as it wafts in and out of our world.
5. Annihilation Mosaics
Anti-category theory does not have Categories but instead Mosaics. How many
kinds of anti-categorical mosaics exist is not known but one of them we will explore
here is the Annihilation Mosaic. Here we want to talk about the minimal
annihilation mosaic. Annihilation seems to be a phenomena that exists in the mind
(as cancellation in mathematics) and in nature where fundamental particles make
each other disappear from time to time vanishing from bubble chamber charts. But
as a phenomena it does not appear to have seemed to have garnered any serious
philosophical study. Here we will attempt to study annihilation more closely and
suggest some first exploratory attempts to define this mosaic minimally at the
conceptual level.
918
Figure 143:
Pure Presence
Being1
present-at-hand
Firstness Secondness Thirdness

manifest relation significance
displayed irrelavance
VOID Being2 Being3 Being4 SYNERGY

Process Being Hyper Being Wild Being Fourthness
ready-to-hand in-hand out-of-hand Holoid
anti-First anti-Second anti-Third

hidden anti-relation relevance
unmanifest juxtaposition insignificance
perhaps hidden in open suprise
broken relation Figure 2
We call them “mosaics” because like ceramic mosaics there are breaks between the
continuous pieces that make up the overall pattern. Those breaks may be highly
irregular. They create juxtapositions between things that can be highly surprising.
For instance in pictorial mosaics called “collages” any image could be juxtaposed to
any other image giving highly novel results. This lets us know that significance is
not just produced by relations that show continuous mappings but may be generated
by unforeseen and unheard of juxtapositions. In the irrelations we see a certain kind
of significance different from the significance seen in the normal relations. Let us
call such significance drawn from ruptures in the normal relations of things “anti-
significance.” We might have a myriad of juxtapositions in a mosaic that produce a
lot of anti-significance. Each juxtaposition might be thought of as a broken relation
or an anti-relation. This brings us to the conclusion that Seconds and Thirds may be
positive or negative. Now that makes us ask whether Firsts can be negative.
Something hidden like the Purloined Letter is definitely a negative first. It is
something hidden in the showing and hiding relations. It may be hidden by being
unmanifest or it may be out in the open for everyone to see and still be just as
hidden. When something is hidden while it is out in the open for everyone to see
we say it exists in the “hollow” in the showing and hiding relations. If Firsts,
Seconds and Thirds have positive and negative moments then we can see these as
919
moving away from the Void itself which would be the Zeroth cardinal term in the
two way series. Of course we posit that these series also extend beyond what Perice
saw to the addition of Fourths. We would consider Fourths as being the dual of the
Zeroth element. It is a point of reversibility out of which the Perician series and
anti-series vanishes. Fourths are synergies and are due to a reformulation of the
thought of B. Fuller about geometry which sees it in terms of Perice’s
philosophical categories.
Now we have an interesting structure which exhibits appearance of opposites

issuing from the Void which vanish again at the point of synergy. In the beginning
there is the Void. Out of it comes what is manifest and hidden, this means that
showing and hiding relations appear as a web in which both things and anti-things
are entangled. Out of that web of showing and hiding relations that manifest
manifestation to us as Process Being there appear relations between things. But
some of these relations may be broken or partial to the limit case of non-existence.
As the opposite of relations we see with surprise these juxtapositions that arise from
partiality of connection. The interference between connections and anti-
connections reveal the trace level underlying phenomena at the level of forms and
signs (structured-processes). And out of these interferences arise anti-significance
and significance. This reveals the meta-level of Being called Wild Being. We
might call this anti-significance an “in-significance” in as much as the meanings are
never overt but often very subtle ironies which normally might not be take
seriously. But the opposite of significance we posit to be relevance1. The ironies
that arise in juxtapositions may be very relevant despite their insignificance.
Synergy synthesizes each of these levels of manifestation and its opposite to
produce a harmonious whole. George Leonard calls the harmonious whole the
“holoidal.” It is because of the anti-properties that synergy may exist in the world.
Synergy must always hide certain aspects of the system or meta-system and surprise
us with necessary juxtapositions and then blend relevance with significance.
Synergies are balances of the properties and the anti-properties of manifestation.
We notice that on the level of First and Anti-first that Process Being becomes
apparent. Then we notice that it is in relations and broken anti-relations that allow
traces to appear. Patterns are combinations of order and disorder on the background
of disorder. Forms are combinations of disorder and order on the background of
order. Traces are the interference patterns between these two ways of looking at
1.Alfred Schutz introduces this term in Relevance.
920
phenomena. So the juxtaposition of Relations and Anti-relations point to Hyper-

Being and the phenomena of differing and deferring of DifferAnce. We can see
traces as the meta-relation between relation and anti-relation. Traces are
interference patterns. They do not appear when you can only see Firsts. They only
appear when you begin to trace relations and note distortions within the field of the
Firsts that could not be seen before. Finally we see that significance and relevance
are chiasmicly related and this points to the propensities that are related to Wild
Being. Propensities or tendencies are extremely insignificant but the little skew
they give things in their nascence may cause wild deviations as things develop.
This “butterfly effect” is something revealed by Chaos theory. What we see is that
relevance and significance are chiasmicly related. Meaning that appears from the
Void is here the non-dual point of reversiblity between significance and relevance.
The tendencies or propensities are the very edge of what can be said to exist. It is
clear that the Void and complete synergy of the universe as interpenetration are
actually the same thing. We get little glimpses of that synergy in mundane things.
But the underlying synergy of everything is what the Buddhists called the Tathagata
Gharba. The Tathagata Gharba is the same as emptiness or the Void. Thus we can
see that the Firsts, Seconds, and Thirds and their anti-categories emerge from the
Void and in effect return to the Void by evolving into Synergy. In the Juxtaposition
between each meta-level of Percian/Fullerian philosophical categories we see the
three meta-levels of Being beyond Pure Presence. Peirce philosophized completely
in the realm of Pure Presence. He did not recognize the philosophical anti-
categories to his fundamental categories. It is only with the advent of philosophical
anti-category theory that we can see this relation and see how hidden in the
difference between each philosophical category and its opposite is the indication of
the three meta-levels of Being.
This extension of the Peircian and Fullerian philosophical categories makes it

possible to see how philosophical anti-categories emerge from Pure Presence by a
series of meta-levels. This lays the ground work for understanding annihilation
mosaics because we see that Mathematical category theory makes use of Seconds
and Thirds discarding or rendering as variables Firsts. But it assumes that we are
constructing our formal system in the Pure Presence meta-level of Being. When we
see that each philosophical category identified by Peirce has a philosophical anti-
category then the door is opened for the other kinds of Being to unfold and be
considered in our analysis as we construct the opposite of mathematical category
theory which is mathematical anti-category theory. Mathematical anti-category
theory is naturally fuzzy as it deals with the possibilities as opposed to the
921
certainties of mathematical category theory. This places it at the level of traces

because of the relation of fuzziness with Hyper Being. It is difficult to talk about
this because the word “category” is used for the philosophical “categories” of
Peirce and Fuller and the Mathematical formalisms that are called “categories” in
mathematical category theory. So please beware of the terminological pitfalls in
this discussion. But be that as it may what becomes clear through this formulation
is that mathematical anti-category theory through the extension of philosophical
anti-categories lends itself to an analysis of the mosaic of annihilation. In effect
each philosophical category and its anti-category cancel each other out. So below
the continuity of mathematical category theory is a deeper theory ontologically
based in which annihilation is embedded.
Now the question arises as to the structure of the minimal annihilation mosaic. This
is to say what is the minimal set of juxtapositions that will allow Firsts and anti-
Firsts to appear and then cancel. What is not been said before is that each First is an
emergent event. It has to be in order to be called a “First” in any originary sense.
Thus Firsts are more than just pure sensations. In some sense they are the
primordial novelties upon which the recognition of all other things are based. If we
take this interpretation we see that in truth manifestation is based on micro-
emergences. This explains why Firsts are independent of each other. It is their
novelty in relation to each other than make them independent. They are not merely
isolated from each other. But they have fundamental discontinuities between
themselves that make them orthogonal to each other so they produce a field of
monads. In these micro-emergence’s showing and hiding structures we see that
they participate in gestalt joining configurations which show some aspect of the
gestalt while hiding some other aspect. If we think of these gestalts being made up
of pure sensations then we are happy to talk of them at the gestalt level. But if we
see the Firsts as originary events then we must think of them at the meta-gestalt
level. Since all emergent events must pass though the four kinds of Being on their
way to manifestation within the clearing in Being then we see how Firsts contain
the whole of manifestation. That is why they cannot be seen on their own. They
need to be unfolded and infolded by looking at relations and anti-relations and by
configuration into significant and relevant constellations of relations and anti-
relations. Ultimately all this is done in order to see the synergies that they
participate in. A proto-gestalt, or meta-system, is a synergetic constellation
participated in by other systems, or gestalts, and which serves as the always already
lost origin for them. Firsts are really only fully unfolded and infolded as they
progress across the interval from the Void to Synergy. Each of them like
922
Leibnizian monads contain the whole that is unfolded and infolded into the greater
whole of the hologram-like holoid of which they are parts at the point of synergy.
A terminological note is in order. “Meta-systems” has two senses. One sense looks
at the arena within which systems contend as Sartre did in Critique Of Dialectical
Reason where he considered boxers fighting in an arena and asked how we can
consider them a dialectical unity. He used the phrase “detotalized totality” to talk
about the kind of system these two fighting systems produced between them
through their conflict. But there is another sense of the meta-system as “origin” out
of which systems evolve like the “Family.” I have used the term proto-gestalt to
indicate this always already lost origin of the systems which come to emerge and
have relations within a meta-system. However there is no known term that covers
both of these senses. So I propose the term archon, going back to the Greek
supervisors of cities. Cities are clearly prototypical meta-systems just as are
households.
Figure 144:
Source of systems gestalt Arena of systems

proto-gestalt system detotalized totality
always already meta-system
lost origin
SAME
“archon”
This word archon has resonances with Ballard’s term The Archaic and with Jung’s
archetype. Arche means the foundational source of something. An archon serves
as both the origin and the arena for the gestalts of systems. Domains, the next
emergent level up from meta-systems, contain many Archons. Worlds consist of
many domains. One of the best examples of Meta-systems is the operating system
in a computer which allows many software systems to coexist and function together
or independently as necessary. We naturally conflate systems and meta-systems but
these two ontologically emergent levels have different natures that need to be
recognized.
So when we ask what a minimal annihilation mosaic is then we must see that it
mirrors the whole of the interval from the Void to synergy. In it are Firsts and their
923
Anti-Firsts which combine into Relations and anti-Relations and further combine
into Significant configurations of relations and Relevant anti-configurations of anti-
Relations. These combine to reveal synergies build into the Firsts and Anti-Firsts
from the Beginning. As we realize that the Void and the Ultimate Synergy of the
Universe are the same then we understand that the annihilation mosaic is merely an
incarnation of the cancellation of these philosophical categories and anti-categories
which reveal as their substrata the hierarchy of the meta-levels of Being.
When we look at the minimal annihilation mosaic we see that it must be structured
on the form of the Greimas square.
Figure 145:
Greimas Square
A non-A (=B)
anti-A anti-non-A (anti-B)
contrary
contradiction
implication
This is the square of contradictions and contraries from logic. Here A and anti-non-
A (anti-B) cancel each other out if they come in contact. Non-A (B) and anti-A do
the same thing. The relations within the square keep them from canceling each
other out. It is because we have introduced anti-Firsts that we can now recognize
the importance of this square. Given any First it has its anti-First and it has
everything that is not it (non-A, i.e. other Firsts). The anti of the non-A is the
otherness opposing A. Each First is seen on the background of that otherness that is
opposed to or contradictory to it. On the other hand anti-A and the non-A are
themselves contradictories. Unless these contradictories are held apart they cancel
logically. Thus the major work of the process of showing and hiding is to hold
these contradictories apart for every First that is manifest. If they are not held apart
then A vanishes because what it hides and what it contrasts to cancel and it fails to
924
be differentiated anymore from its background. The set of constraints that

dynamically hold these sets of contradictories apart is the minimal annihilation
mosaic. It is a standing wave in the interference pattern that prevents
contradictories form annihilating each other.
In order to find an example of this kind of formation we can consider solitons. It

turns out that solitons and their anti-solitons do not cancel. So here when we speak
of solitons we will be using ANTI in a different sense from that which is normally
used which usually refers to that which cancels “A.” Instead they interact forming
“breathers” which oscillate between the two positive and negative soliton
formations. Thus in order to put cancellation into such a system it is necessary to
introduce creation and annihilation operators that produce pairs of solitons with
canceling properties. If we do that then we see that each soliton, A, and its anti-
soliton, anti-A, produce breathers which we hypothesize produce super-breathers
when paired with the pair of canceling solitons B and anti-B. This super-breather
configuration would have the form of the Greimas square. In other words A and
anti-B or B and anti-A would cancel if they were separate but since they are part of
a larger formation they do not cancel but create a higher level breathing formation
instead. So it is with the annihilation formation. A and anti-B would cancel if they
ever encountered each other separately, as would B and anti-A, but since each set of
canceling opposites hold each other apart cancellation is averted in this minimal
system formation. We also note that each particle is defined on the background of
all others so that any one other comes to stand for all others. This aversion of
cancellation may be temporary and in fact just long enough for the annihilation
mosaic to be what it is. This is the minimal temporality of every thing in existence
according to G.H. Mead. So in this case the annihilation formation is really a
relation between any one foreground First and all other Firsts or any one other First
representing all the others. The annihilation formation focuses all these possible
backgrounds of each foregrounded First. We might have expected A to merely
cancel with anti-A but if that were the case then there would be nothing in existence
since all cancellations would merely happen automatically. Instead the annihilation
formation must be a minimal system that shows us how annihilations are prevented
by occurring though the possible annihilation of other things. This interference or
prevention of one annihilation by another is the house of cards from which all
annihilation formations are built. When one releases one of the cards then there is a
catastrophe in which multiple cancellations occur all of a sudden which have all
been prevented from occurring thought mutual interference up to this point. Such a
catastrophe is an integral part of Magician systems. But why does it occur at a
925
particular point in the lifecycle of a Magician system. It must be that it was

prevented by other annihilations that blocked the catastrophe from occurring. It is
the minimal system of two blocking annihilations that account for this strange
behavior that puts off the catastrophe. We cannot build up the apparent continuous
nature of Magician systems from anything else. We must see that all Magician
systems at root are self-interfering annihilation mosaics that once released from
self-blocking move into the catastrophe of cascading annihilations. What holds the
Magician system in existence is merely the fact that contraries can hold
contradictories apart.
What is said here of Firsts is also true of relations and anti-relations as well as
configurations and anti-configurations. The anti and non nodes are contradictions
for relations and configurations. Likewise the original and the anti-non are
contradictions. Each First, Second or Third enters into this annihilation
configuration so that the whole is a web of such annihilation configurations. This
web has its limit in complete synergy. What is interesting is that the annihilation
mosaic is not what is visible in the Greimas square but what is invisible there. It is
the constraints that keep the mutual contradictories apart to prevent annihilation.
These constraints themselves are invisible. They exist at the trace level. They exist
as sets of mutual interferences that at least momentarily keep the structure from
falling together and vanishing completely. It is the set of all these interferences that
all the Firsts and their relations and configurations enter into that underlie showing
and hiding relations in the gestalt and which put these at the meta-gestalt level.
These comprise the proto-gestalt that tends toward the limit of complete synergy
called the Holoidal.
So the whole set of Firsts and anti-Firsts, Relations and anti-Relations, and
Configurations and anti-Configurations are built out of the Void itself which is
merely prevented from falling back into the Void by self-blocking of annihilation.
Once this blocking ceases then the whole web falls back into the Void. But here
there is an insight. The Void does not mean the absence of everything necessarily.
It may mean a deep synergy that prevents, harmonically, cancellation catastrophes
from occurring completely and which self-regenerates continually. When cascades
of annihilations produce loops then we have dissipative systems. When we
combine two loops of annihilation cascades we get an autopoietic formation. When
we combine four loops of annihilation cascades we get a reflexive system. We can
form loops because certain cancellations will have an asymmetry that actually
creates something that can be fed back into the top of the annihilation cascade
926
again. Annihilation cascades may cause enough production of created particles to

keep the cascade going indefinitely. These looped annihilation cascades have forms
similar to Escher waterfalls in which the falling water produces an equal upward
current. Such a looped cascades twists through spacetime/timespace so it looks like
it is entropic locally, i.e. annihilating itself, but globally it is creating enough side
effects to keep itself supplied with cannon fodder for the continual annihilation.
Such a cascade though purely negative in origin once it is sustained becomes a
positive phenomena. We can see that in the Game Of Life by Conway that sports
strange objects like gliders that appear to be positive phenomena by constantly
renewing themselves as they are being destroyed. Annihilation mosaics many have
this kind of dynamism based on self renewal that balances creation and destruction
globally or across some sub-field of the mosaic. To understand that self-
regeneration we must ask what is the opposite of the annihilation operator. The
answer is obviously the creation operator such as that which exists in quantum field
theory for instance. The creation operator can cause two particles to jump out of the
field into existence. Once we define the possibility of annihilations that have side
effects then it is possible to realize that side effects may synergize to cause things to
appear directly out of the background field unbeckoned such as virtual particles do
that writhe in spacetime beneath the limit of the conservation laws. A creation
operator must produce a particle and an antiparticle in order to preserve global
symmetry even as local symmetry is violated. But these dual particles do not have
to annihilate each other immediately. They can be drawn away from each other
pursuing independent worldlines. All side effects would be assumed to have this
kind of balance that globally did not produce an imbalance that appears locally
perhaps in several places throughout the field of annihilating opposites.
Conservation laws are a way of saying that there is a deep harmony in existence that
keeps things that are conserved in existence despite the falling back into the field of
specific particles and the arising of others perhaps in a local cycle. These local
cycles of annihilation may have very complex relations with the epicycles of
creation with which they are interleaved. It is these cycles and their intertwined
cascades of annihilation and creation that form the substrate of everything in a
discontinuous universe. Creation appears against the backdrop of annihilation as
apparent persistence. It is that persistence that is reified into Being. Becoming is
the reification of the ebb and flow of creation interlaced with annihilation. But both
Becoming (Physus) and static Being exist only as side effects to the process of
continual annihilation. The holoidal synergy is that face of existence that is
constantly creative in the face of annihilation. In Hindu mythology this is Vishnu in
relation to Shiva. Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the destroyer. These two are
927
balanced against each other in such a way that the universe appears to remain in
place even though it is constantly perishing and being renewed. What sustains that
balance is Brahman which is the name for the Absolute Being. And in fact
Magician systems assume that there is a creation operator that may produce a
Magician or anti-Magician out of nothing to influence the annihilation process
acting as a group filter on individual Magician votes. We cannot have annihilation
without its opposite which is creation of particles out of nothing (or the
groundstate). It is this creation of wild cards that allows for the cascade of
annihilation to be guided so that it never quite destroys everything and which
reveals the deep synergy intrinsic to the Void.
We have asked what the minimal annihilation mosaic might be and found that it
was a minimal system of contradictory pairs in balance. Next we should ask about
the minimal cascade with side effects. It is clearly two minimal systems in which
the annihilation of the first square produces pairs of side effects which then generate
another Greimas square that then creates a new set of annihilations that produce the
starting point for the first Greimas square. In this we notice that a Greimas square is
really a minimal system that contains within it two annihilations which are opposite
each other. These are the other two legs of the tetrahedron that are hidden in
Greimas’ formulation because they are really anti-relations or juxtapositions. Out
of these Anti-relations we posit opposite side effects (C and anti-C) arise in the
process of cancellation of “A ! anti-B” and “B ! anti-A.” Once these new
phenomena exist then a new Greimas square forms as they appear on the
background of the ever present field of all other possible pairs. That field defines
Non-C which immediately gives rise to anti-non-C which can be embodied as
another specific particle/antiparticle pair. These we posit cancel to produce A and
anti-A and so the minimal cycle starts all over again.
Figure 146:
A ------- B (non-A)
|\ /|
| \ / |
B!anti-A=>C__|__/ \__|_______ A!anti-B=>anti-C
|/ \|
anti-A ------- anti-B (anti-non-A)
928
C ------- D (non-C)
|\ /|
| \ / |
D!anti-C=>A___|__/ \__|_______ C!anti-D=>anti-A
|/ \|
anti-C ------- anti-D (anti-non-C)
This is the minimal cascade of annihilations with side effects. We may imagine
many more complex structures. But this scheme is comprised of interlocking
minimal systems with concretized juxtapositions that manifest as positive side
effects. B. Fuller calls this kind of interpenetrating minimal system formation the
vector equilibrium. Note that once the cycle begins then it stabilizes and the field it
is part of has a net energy dissipation of zero. This is why it can be a stable
cascading formation.
We can construct Magicians from these cycles because once a cycle is set up we can
count on the side effect to pop up after the annihilation of the first square leading to
the annihilation of the second and back to the first. This is not recursion. Recursion
would be if the first annihilation produced itself instead of another -- but that is
merely continuity. To be discontinuity at least every other side effect generation
must be different. Yet even though this is not continuity it can approximate a semi-
continuity which is what the Magicians provide. Think of a multi-tasking system.
It trades CPU cycles to do two tasks seemingly concurrently. Magician systems can
approximate continuous processing through multi-tasking -- i.e. returning to the
same task every other cycle. Also we see that this means that Magician systems are
by definition autonomous agents. Agency appears with multi-tasking or concurrent
processors. Multi-tasking is usually seen as a degenerate simulation of concurrent
processing. But here we see that it has a fundamental meaning when seen in
relation to Magician systems. It allows the approximation of continuity by degrees.
We also notice that this violates Church’s Thesis that all computation is partially
recursive. Total recursion is mere tautology. Partial recursion can issue results so
computation is identified with partial recursion. Partiality has to do with
asymmetry in computation. All computation is seen in terms of its departure from
symmetry of pure recursion. We can see pure recursion as the annihilation whose
side effect is recreation of itself. All the partialities that depart from this are
asymmetries that lead to computations some of which are finite and halt and some
of which are infinite or of unknown duration without being tautologies. We only
929
consider those partial recursions that halt as computable. But we cannot know
before hand what computations will halt and which won’t. The non-computability
of the halting condition makes the boundary between the computable and the non-
computable indeterminate. This boundary is explored with Turing Oracles which
can “know” whether a given computation will halt. By giving turing machines an
operator which knows the halting condition very fine distinctions between shades of
computability can be determined. This is because the indeterminateness of the
halting condition can be separated from the non-determinateness of the
computational results. It is the meta-indeterminateness -- or compound
indeterminacy that makes computability such a thorny problem.
Magician systems are not recursive but at most bi-recursive. Through bi-recursion
single recursion can be simulated via multi-tasking. But bi-recursion is
fundamentally different from recursion. The fact that it violates Churches Thesis
but still computes places Magician systems in a very special class in which
interfering recursions appear. If one of these bi-recursions is computing the halting
condition via some proof then the Magician system can simulate a turing oracle.
But the turing oracle is a special case of bi-recursion. The other bi-recursive thread
could be computing anything. And bi-recursion is merely the simplest case much
more complex looping cascades of annihilation with side effects are possible. This
field of possible combinations of interlocking threads leads quite quickly to
incredible complexity. It is only through the use to the minimal design methods and
the viewpoints on software design that any sense can be made of the least complex
aspects of this realm of interfering autonomous computational threads. The limit of
this is what Kampis calls quantum computation which is completely statistical upon
a field of infinite threads which connect to each other randomly. Even this limit of
possible computability schemes can simulate continuity. But the point is that the
interference between multiple threads operating in cycles of annihilation and
creation produces incredible complexity which is inherently non-recursive. Only
reciprocal partial recursion of bi-recursive threads can produce a complete
simulation of continuity within a Magician system. This splitting of the continuity
production can degenerate to the limit of quantum computation and still simulate
continuity.
I postulate that within this complexity of interfering threads there are islands of
computability beyond the limit discovered by the turing oracles. The limit
discovered by the turing oracles is clearly fractal but like chaos we think there must
be islands of computability within non-computability just like we have islands of
930
order within chaotic regimes. Similarly we think there are islands of ultra-
consistency beyond the threshold of inconsistency Godel found for axiomatic
systems. What we are really saying here is that there are thresholds of complexity
where the cycles of creation and destruction interleave to form harmonic thresholds
where synergy is especially strong producing both computability and consistency in
the midst of uncomputability and inconsistency. The special systems mark one
related set of such thresholds which express themselves as full or partial algebras.
So the special systems are merely specific points in the space computed by
Magician meta-systems that are synergistic and harmonic to the extent that they
mimic dissipative, autopoietic, and social systems. These harmonic fixed points are
the ones which approximate complete intertransformabilty of the illusory
continuity. They are the levels of conjunction of continuity. The
intertransformability weakens as the complexity of conjunction increases. These
levels of increasing complexity correspond to the loss of algebraic properties which
gives each level its emergent properties. The special systems are harmonic locuses
of creating and annihilating cycles. They are encompassed by the Magician meta-
system that computes these and other multi-threaded formations. Each thread can
have its own kind of numbers so that the multi-threaded aspect corresponds to the
differentiation of numbers into kinds that can be held in conjunction but cannot be
told apart otherwise. Conjunction holds these numbers together yet apart.
Conjunction operates like the constraints of an annihilation system.
It is an interesting fact that the different kinds of numbers are like anti-matter in that
they do not appear except in conjunction with real numbers. This is a sure sign that
they are a manifestation of the unconscious. We postulate that they do not appear
because when imaginaries and reals come together except when held apart by
conjunction cancel. If this is true then we can see that there is an isomorphism
between the minimal annihilation mosaic and the complex numbers conjunction.
Here we have to assume that besides annihilation there is induced the strange twist
that appears in the imaginary numbers within the Greimas square. This can be
accomplished if the side-effects of production interchange the particle and
antiparticle produced with each annihilation. This interchange of signs can be
statistical instead of determinate. This would induce a twisting motion within the
cancellation if it were repeated over and over. There is a similar correspondence
between the quaternion algebra and the minimal self-annihilating and self-creating
cascade defined above. This is because that cascade creates four Firsts and we can
see that the i, j, k and x of the quaternions can be construed as those Firsts if we see
the Firsts as numbers and we assume that there is a dual twist in the cycling of the
931
cascade. This is accomplished as well by the exchange of the particle and

antiparticle that is produced by each annihilation. Following this line of argument
we can see that the octave level will would combine two minimal twisting
annihilation cascades with side effects to produce a simulation of the octave system.
These formations of cascades have algebraic properties when the Firsts that are
combined represent numbers.
Complex numbers simulated by one Greimas square which is self creating. This
formation is recursive not bi or multi-recursive. The twist is induced by the
annihilation side effects producing opposite signed result each time. This
interchange of signs can be statistical instead of determinate. The exclamation
point (!) signifies annihilation of the center paths that cross the inside of the square
and convert it into a tetrahedron with two juxtapositions that when they annihilate
have side effects that produce new particles which in this case are Firsts in the guise
of numbers.
Figure 147:
x ------- i
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/-x !___|__/ \__|_______! +/- x
|/ \|
-x ------- -i
Quaternion numbers simulated by two interlocking Greimas squares in a looped

annihilation cascade with side effects. Twist induced by annihilation producing
opposite signed results each time. This interchange of signs can be statistical
instead of determinate. These two annihilation mosaics form a cascade which is
looped via the side effects of particles produced. Here the Firsts appear as numbers
of different kinds with algebraic relations determined by the Quaternions.
932
Figure 148:
x ------- i
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- j !__|__/ \__|______! +/- j
|/ \|
-x ------- -i
j ------- k
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- x !__|__/ \__|______! +/- x
|/ \|
-j ------- -k
Octave numbers simulated by four interlocking Greimas squares in a looped

annihilation cascade with side effects. The interchange of signs can be statistical
instead of determinate.
Figure 149:
x ------- i
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- j !__|__/ \__|______! +/- j
|/ \|
-x ------- -i
j ------- k
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- E !__|__/ \__|______! +/- E
|/ \|
-j ------- -k
E ------- I
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- J !__|__/ \__|______! +/- J
|/ \|
-E ------- -I
933
J ------- K
|\ /|
| \ / |
+/- x !__|__/ \__|______! +/- x
|/ \|
-J ------- -K
These twisting looped cascades of annihilations with side effects provide minimal
models of the analogies for the special systems. The Magician meta-system
includes these three harmonic levels as a meta-algebra that uses there emergent
properties as operators producing an inner product of the algebras related to the
special systems. The next step is to consider Magician meta-systems or
constellations more carefully as something that arises out of the annihilation
mosaics.
6. Magician Constellations
Notice that relations may appear in three guises in Magician meta-systems. They
are either annihilation, mutual action, or gestalt joining operations. Firsts appear
from the point of view of showing and hiding within gestalt joins. Within these
patterns of showing and hiding they have mutual actions which are non-
commutative. And on the basis of these actions they participate in annihilations
that leave the seeds for the next moment. In all of these kinds of relations we can
see complex configurations and anti-configurations. When we enter into the realm
of General Systems Theory (GST), that is the realm of structural-form from the
realm of patterning of Firsts, then we can add order relations to those mentioned
above. So we see here a minimal system of kinds of relations three of which arise
as emergent characteristics of the special systems and the other which arises in the
build of GST form the Methodological Distinctions (kinds of order).
We must add this minimal system of kinds of relations to the minimal system of the
annihilation formation mentioned above. Before we only considered generic
relations. But here we see that four specific kinds of relations appear in the domain
that contains Magician meta-systems and general systems. These lead us to
formulate the different kinds of significances and relevances that might appear
within the domain.
934
Figure 150:
Zeroths (Void)
The groundstate out of which Firsts arise.
Firsts (showing) & Anti-Firsts (hiding)

completely orthogonal micro-emergents
Seconds (relations) & Anti-Seconds (juxtaposition)

• gestalt joining
• annihilation
• mutual action
• order
Thirds (significance) & Anti-thirds (relevance)
• gestalt joining - annihilation -- Mutual Blockage

• gestalt joining - mutual action -- Reciprocality
• gestalt joining - order -- Voting
• annihilation - mutual action -- Side Effect or Collusion
• annihilation - order -- Seeds
• mutual action - order -- Inscription
Fourths (synergies, holoid)

Creation Operator = social filtering or conservation
What we notice is that the different possible Thirds or anti-Thirds produce the basic
life-cycle of the Magician meta-system.
1) Seeds are laid down from the last creation of the universe emanating due to the
creative principle. That last moment of creation or specious present is cut
off from this one by the discontinuity of total annihilation. Thus like the
Hindu cosmology there is a fundamental oscillation between the dominance
of Shiva and Vishnu. The seeds are the combination of annihilation and
order which means they are the way order is passed on from moment to
moment in spite of annihilation.
935
2) When the seeds fructify they produce the Magicians of this present moment that
can be seen in relations with each other despite their intrinsic propensity to
annihilate each other. Thus gestalt joining overcomes annihilation long
enough for the seeds to fructify and produce the orderings of present
Magicians. This occurs because of the possibility of mutual blocking
inherent in the annihilation mosaic. Magicians are basically delayed
annihilations or collective disasters waiting to happen. In this we see their
basic existential foundation in Hyper Being as they display DifferAnce of
differing and deferring. They are all diacritically different from one another
and what is deferred is their mutual self-destruction.
3) Mature Magicians inscribe the trace level. If nothing else they write their turing
machine representations to the light communications tapes to communicate
their DNA-like make up to other Magicians. Inscription is the outward
action of the Magicians directed at the substance upon which they exist at
this current round of existence. That substance is a palimpsest. It is
destroyed as well at the end of the specious present but this is the way that
Magicians set up the illusion that they exist in the present. Inscription is the
combination of mutual action with order. They write a pattern together as a
social product or cultural artifact. For Deleuze and Guattari the substance
on which they write as the socius must be their own bodies. This is the
automatic writing aspect of DifferAnce. This is the phase when social
construction of reality occurs.
4) Next the Magicians interact socially within the world they have created and
inscribed. This is the combination of gestalt joining with mutual action.
This is their intergroup action. We could see this as the group sex phase if
we are thinking in terms of genetic algorithms. It is the explicitly social
phase. It is during this phase they dialog to decide what should happen in
the next specious present moment. This is the phase of symbolic interaction
in which selves are formed.
5) Next voting occurs where virtual Magicians are produced. Voting is the
combination of gestalt joining and order. In it the order that has been
socially created which is now seen in the votes as a higher level gestalt.
These virtual Magicians are projected into the realm of possibility where
everyone can see the various possibilities projected. Out of nothing either
Magicians or anti-Magicians may be created as wild cards from the social
unconscious of the group interacting with the field in order to skew the
results of voting. Voting is the inward action of the individual magicians.
936
6) Finally in this realm of possibilities Annihilation occurs among possible

Magicians. As a result of this process it is decided what Magicians will be
laid down as seeds in the next moment. But those seeds are not the actual
Magicians but they are potentials that lead to side effects that occur in the
next instant as a result of the annihilation process. Thus in this phase
annihilation is combined with mutual action to produce side effects or
collusions that appear in the next discontinuous instant. It is these collusions
that emanate from instant to instant not actual Magicians. If actual
Magicians moved from moment to moment we would have a continuity and
thus a system. Here we are talking about a Magician constellation instead
of a system so we cannot allow actual Magicians to live beyond the end of a
specious present moment.
So the lifecycle of the Magician meta-system or constellation is determined by the

relation between the four kinds of relation that appeared at the level of Seconds and
anti-Seconds. Needless to say Magicians as a constellation may have imputed
relations and juxtapositions just like the stars in a constellation. Some stars are
imputed to be connected by lines and others not. Also configurations of relations
may produce significance (irrelevance) whereas configurations of juxtapositions
may produce relevance. We see both the relations/juxtapositions and relevances/
significances as clouds that surround the Magicians which appear as constantly
shifting alliances within the group and appear as beliefs or ideologies (sets of
significances) that arise and replaced in the wheel turning from birth to death within
the moment.
Magician Constellations arise out of GST and appears orthogonal to it as the

unification of the special systems theories. But together they constitute a minimal
system of kinds of relations which covers all systems and meta-systems within an
overall meta-meta-system or domain. The domain contains all the special systems
plus GST. It contains the Magician meta-system that unites the special systems in a
computable model of Chaotic meta-systems. It is Domains that combine GST and
Magician Constellations that make up the World. We might say that GST and
Magician Constellations work together to project the world. These operate within
the interval between Void and Synergy and differentiate the kinds of relations that
can occur between Firsts and Thirds. It is the differentiation of relations that
Magician meta-systems and Formal-Structural systems cooperate to define.
7. The Minimal Structure of Magician Constellations
937
We have posited that the difference between a Magician meta-system and a system
is that there is a moment of the life cycle of the Magician Meta-system where the
whole group is annihilated. It is this entering into potentiality that defines the meta-
system as a proto-gestalt and differentiates it from the system as a gestalt. The
Magician system that enters into pure potentiality and then bounces back into
actuality juts out from the proto-gestalt and defines it negatively as the source of all
systems. It is necessary to go on from this insight to ask what the minimal structure
of Magician constellations are. When we do that we find that there are two answers
to this question. We ask first what their minimal structure of manifestation is and
then we must go on to ask what their minimal structure given occlusion must be.
The important question for us is what the minimal structure of these systems must
be to pass on karmic causality from discontinuous moment to moment.
In answer to the first question we note that a Magician system is in fact as

Grenander defines a generator with attributes and bonds. However, we approach
that definition though the equation of ideation:
Idea = Form + Sign + Trace + No Trace (Propensity) + Emptiness
FORM:
The Magician system is composed of individuated actualized generators which are

defined by constraints that differentiate the Magicians within the system from each
other and the system from its environment. We can see these constraints as rules
which define what is allowed within each generator and what is within the system in
relation to what is excluded.
SIGN:
Signs are the values of the attributes of the Magician/generators. Magicians may
have any number of attributes some of which may represent internal states of the
Magician. These attributes take on values which are either self-imposed, imposed
by other Magicians, or imposed by the environment. The collection of attributes
differentiate the individual generators from each other. Among the attributes are
the bond values which represent bond receptor sites.
TRACE:
938
Traces are the results of actions. Thus the presence of actions within the Magician
system is its addressing of the trace level of existence. The Magician/generator
must at least have these actions:
• appearance (self-showing)
• morphogenesis from a seed pattern (coded turing representation)
• the ability to observe gestalt patterns (parser)
• the ability to inscribe patterns
• the ability to communicate to other Magicians
• mutual interaction with other Magicians
• voting to produce potential Magicians
• side-effects of annihilation
• disappearance (self-hiding)
•
PROPENSITIES (No Trace):
Traces inscribe the substrate which support the forms and signs. But the substrate
itself is composed of propensities and tendencies. These are statistical or chaotic
tendencies to act in a certain way by the Magician/generator. Propensities are
described by vectors with direction and intensity. They are added to obtain certain
attributes or occur when certain gestalt patterns are perceived. They connect the
attributes of the Magician, the group of Magicians, or the environment, to the
actions of the Magician.
EMPTINESS:
Magicians that exist as part of meta-systems must be Firsts which means micro-
emergent events. A Magician system that is not a meta-system may not be a First.
As such the Magician must produce an anti-First which is its opposite. An anti-
First is something hidden. Just as solitons have as an opposite the dark soliton
which is soliton shaped emptiness so does the Magician that is part of a meta-
system. These shadows of Magician systems are what maintain the balance
between what is manifest and what is not manifest as the Magician meta-system
images the proto-gestalt that lies behind the scenes as the gestalts appear and
disappear. These shadows are “nothing” or “holes in existence” but they exactly
image the Magician in reverse and have real action just like a Magician does. The
shadows of the Magicians appear in the mirror of the Void.
939
Besides having this shadow aspect we can see that the Magician system may take
part in anti-relations (juxtapositions) and may generate relevances instead of
significances. The emptiness is the mirror within which we see the juxtapositions
or disconnections between things. It is also the mirror in which significances mirror
relevances. The chiasmic point of reversibility that juts out into the mirror of
emptiness is meaning. Meaning arises from emptiness. Things are ultimately
empty like the geode and it is because of that they have endless meaning. Thus all
Magicians that operate as meta-systems and point to the proto-gestalt must have this
emptiness at their core which is seen in the relevances over against the
significances, in the juxtapositions over against the relations, in the anti-Firsts over
against the Firsts. All these form synergies within the showing and hiding relations
that the Magician meta-system produce. Those synergies are the group or social
aspect of the Magicians working together in a complex dance that circles around the
empty center of the vortex of their annihilation.
Now we need to move to the second part of our question. We see that the Magician
has aspects that relate to each kind of Being as they define the layers of ideation
which means illusory continuity. And in fact Magician meta-systems go beyond
this and have a negative shadow that balances their positive side. Thus we can say
that the Magician meta-system balances what we would call the negative fourfold
with the positive fourfold. The fourfolds are basic metaphysical principles within
our tradition. The positive fourfold is the primary metaphysical principle which is
developed in philosophy of the Western tradition. The negative fourfold is what
appears in anti-category theory and annihilation mosaics which is the aspect of
existence that our tradition attempts to hide and remain unconscious of to the
greatest extent possible. It is what our tradition turns away from and refuses to look
at. It appears in the negative aspects of the Magician meta-systems as they interact
with respect to annihilation. The Magician meta-system turns toward death and
recognizes it as a phenomena to which is oriented. In this way Magician systems
represent authentic Being-There as they are oriented directly toward their own
death.
However, we must ask what is the minimal structure of the Magician system that
will allow it to influence the next moment as the universe is created anew? How is
the passage of karmic causation passed from moment to moment? And how does
the collusion of Magician systems occur in such a way that the next moment can
receive the seeds laid down in this moment when their is radical discontinuity
between moments? These are the key questions that the Buddhist tradition
940
answered with respect to Karma when causation was denied. Their answer was the
alaya vijyana or storehouse consciousness where the seeds for the next instant were
laid down. But the alaya vijuana was destroyed and reborn anew in the next instant
so that the seeds and what they were laid down in vanished. Thus their answer
seems very tenuous given the radical discontinuity between instants where there is a
new creation each moment in some time span less than Planks constant.
This is the point when we need to delve deeper into the proto-gestalt. It is the proto-
gestalt that makes this influence of one moment on the next possible. Within the
moment there is a spawning of the Magician system which lays down new seeds
which seek to pass on their influence via a collusion to the next moment after the
radical discontinuity of destruction and recreation of a new universe. Let us
remember that the each system that appears appears from the proto-gestalt which
appears in the guise of the collective unconscious or the alaya vijyana. Likewise let
us remember that beyond the universe we have the pluri-verse which acts like the
proto-gestalt for the universe as a whole. The universe arises from the pluri-verse
just as the system arises from the meta-system. Both the system and the universe
the system appears within arise from the ultimate proto-gestalt that we posit as
existing in endlesstime as the worldtree. Thus things do not just appear out of
nothing but each thing has an origin. We trace back that origin in the Indo-
european background to the Western tradition to the myth of the worldtree that
stands in endlesstime and from which all things arise. All things ultimately have a
single origin. And we know from Bell’s theorem that anything that has been
together with something else no matter how far apart they get can be influenced by
changes in the thing to which it is connected. Thus we note that the separate
systems that arise from the proto-gestalt and the separate universes that arise from
the pluri-verse were all together at one point at the always already lost origin from
which they arose in dependent co-arising. In our case we are merely positing that
dependent co-arising does not have to be simultaneous but can be distributed in
time in the same space. We know that the Matrix of spacetime/timespace allows
dependent co-arising at the same time which then bonds the co-arising entities as
long as they exist. But it is only a small change from this to realize that systems that
arise at the same place but at different times can through the Matrix influence each
other because they were together at the always already lost origin in the proto-
gestalt. This is the concept put forward by Sheldrake of Morphological Resonance.
In other words something that has occurred in a prior system or universe can
influence a later system or universe if they have the same origin. And this relation
is reciprocal no matter how far apart they become in the spacetime/timespace
941
Matrix. In Shledrake’s formulation once something has been created in the

universe then it is easier to create again. But he is assuming a continuous universe
and is talking about a trace level resonance within that continuous universe. Instead
we are talking about a resonance at all ontological levels between systems via a
meta-system (proto-gestalt) and universes via the meta-universe (pluri-verse) which
extends Bell’s theorem which we know is physically true in terms of spacetime
separation within the universe. Instead we see that different systems which arise
from the same meta-system always remain linked no matter how far they are apart
in terms of space and time. Likewise universes that arise from the same pluri-verse
always remain linked no matter how far apart they get in terms of the Matrix of
spacetime and timespace which holds all parallel universes. Parallel universes are
merely those unreachable parts of the Matrix that cannot be linked via causation to a
certain other regions. Having the same always already lost origin is the key to
mutual influence between radically discontinuous segments of the Matrix or within
a particular causally linked universe between discontinuous showing and hiding
regimes. The same comment may be made for Domains and Worlds or for Forms
and Primitives. In fact each level of the emergent ontological hierarchy is
connected in this way. Each higher level is the always already lost origin of the
next lower level. This must be true because each higher level emerges with its own
properties, constraints and dynamics with sui generis reality. The origin is lost
because we cannot see beyond the emergent arising of new properties to understand
the connection of one layer to the next. Emergence means utter novelty and
disconnection which is orthogonal to what was revealed at the last ontological
emergent level of existence. So we posit that the influence between primitives is
through forms, between forms is through systems, between systems is through
meta-systems, between meta-systems is through domains, between domains is
through worlds, between worlds is through universes, between universes is through
pluri-verses. That influence may be across time or space because the spacetime/
timespace Matrix is four dimensional at least and time can be traded for space with
impunity. So as long as there is an emergence together from the same always
already lost, i.e. emergent origin, then there is mutual influence no matter how far
apart in time. So the influence can move from one completely separate and self-
contained universe to another via one completely separate and self contained
system that lays down seeds of influence that the configuration of another similar
one in the new universe. This is similar to the tunneling that is found to exist in the
structure of atoms. There is in effect quantum tunneling between universes and
between one system in one universe to another system in another universe. The
universes must have the same origin in the same pluri-verse and the systems must
942
have the same origin in the same meta-system within their universe. But if the
origins are the same then quantum tunneling may occur that breaches the integrity
of the discontinuous systems or universes on a wave level so that perfuming as the
karmic transmission of causality does occur. If you think about it this influence via
quantum tunneling due to Bell’s theorem between discontinuous systems in
discontinuous universe is an amazing result. Just as continuity is limited by the
appearance of discontinuity in the substrate supporting the illusion of continuity, so
to despite radical separation and discontinuity there is subtle influences between the
discontinuous creations that gives a continuity to karmic causation.
So another question about Magician systems is what minimal structure do they need
to be able to take advantage of this possibility of influence across continuities via
the shared already always lost origin? When we look at this question closely we see
that all manifestation of continuity has the ideational structure comprised of the
layers already mentioned of Form, Sign, Trace, Propensity, and Emptiness. This is
because continuity itself is formed in layers based on the four kinds of Being. So
when we introduce radical discontinuity we must cut though all of these layers to
reach the emptiness that means radical separation is achieved. Now we can discern
discontinuities that are only formal in which case micro-formalisms that deal with
rearrangements of content can bridge the gap from an explanatory point of view.
But we can go beyond that to discern discontinuities that do not share content across
the gap between structural-forms. In this case it is at the trace level that we find the
necessary bridge. In fact we have seen that the special systems all appeal to the
trace level to base their imaginaries on that allow intertransformations were both
Form and Signs do not work anymore. The special systems produce more and more
trace level fixed points around which these transformations revolve into the
substrata of potentiality and back out again. Instantatons that jump from place to
place also use this substrata of potential at the trace level as their means of
continuous transport despite their seeming discontinuous movement. Below the
trace level we can discern discontinuities that do not share traces across the gap
between potentials. In this case what exists between potentials are propensities.
Propensities do not retain traces but merely remember the intensity and direction
within a chaotic substrata. Traces must produce an alignment between these
propensities in groups to retain the impression of forms and signs. The propensities
themselves without that alignment display chaotic perturbation. We can think of
this as a wave. A wave is an alignment of propensities or tendencies working
together to show the wavelike patterning. That wavelike patterning is the inverse of
the particle of signs and the conglomeration of those particles into a form. But the
943
water itself ignoring the wavelike motion together has a Brownian motion where
each water particle expresses its energy intensity and propensity to move. At the
level of no-trace we only have these individual propensities embedded in the
substrate and lose the wave like group actions that are the shadows of the forms and
signs. Finally if we move beyond these propensities there is only emptiness or the
Void. At that level we have reached the most radical kind of discontinuity that is
possible. But even at this level there is the harmony and resonance that occurs
because of mutual origin or prior interaction. Thus even at this most radical level
where nothing is transferred across the discontinuity there is still the mutual
influence across the discontinuity by the equivalent of quantum tunneling between
universes or between systems dispersed in time that exists due to the physical effect
of Bell’s theorem. This is possible due to the fact that the Void or emptiness has an
aspect of Harmony or synergy and it is the resonances between entities radically
disconnected by emptiness that allow mutual influence despite utter disconnection.
Now when we ask how the Magician meta-system interacts across these levels of
discontinuity we see that it would have to posses structure related to each level of
possible discontinuity to be robust enough to influence what lies on the other side of
the discontinuity. In fact this defines the minimal structure of the Magician meta-
system. In the next moment, the Forms will be changed, the Attributes filled with
signs will be changed, the actions that produce the traces or wavelike effects will be
different, and the propensities that connect the perceptions and attributes to call up
actions will be changed. The Magician system must address all these actions in
order to cope with deeper and deeper levels of discontinuity. But the deepest level
of discontinuity were emptiness declares that nothing will be passed between the
discontinuous regimes must also be addressed. And it is addressed by the shadow
of the Magician system. Each Magician as a First has its anti-First which is really
nothing. It is a nothing that can be passed through the synergy of the Void to effect
the other regime. Anti-Firsts are disconnected from each other via juxtapositions
and have relevances. Anti-Firsts are the opposite of emergences. They represent
what is not new what continues despite radical discontinuity. Magician systems
must produce these shadows and push them through the synergy points in order to
assure continuity between moments. This is why Magicians operate as groups and
conform to the structure of the special systems. The special systems define the
synergy points at the level of traces. The Magician systems must formulate the
seeds through voting and then deliver the message to the next new universe via the
synergy at the level of traces. The seeds are propensities that will arise in the next
moment. We know that chaos is not complete disorder but order within disorder.
944
Thus when the Magician systems produce the seeds that the group think should
exist in the next moment it must produce a trace and propensity impression which is
then formed into an anti-First and placed in relation to the synergies that exist in the
present moment. Then when the next moment occurs it discovers certain
propensities that are patterned in a way that gives rise to traces that give rise to signs
that in turn produce forms of the desired Magicians in the next moment. Magicians
must have the minimal structure to perform this inscription of the desired form into
the synergy inherent in the Void which will allow the correct group of Magicians to
bounce into existence in the next moment. We can think of this as a forcing
function that produces a wave of nonexistence that bounces off the mirror of the
Void to produce in the next moment the desired effect. This amounts to the karmic
passage of causality thought the always already lost origin that mediates between
the mutually influencing but disconnected universes that contain systems that
emanate from the same meta-system.
Similarly the same kind of action can occur at the domain and world level. At the
level of the world we project the primal scene as the image of the always already
lost origin. For us that primal scene contains an image of the worldtree and the well
that is the source of the water of life. And it contains the dark image of the female
Norns dispensing fate. Each discipline or domain emanates from the worldview
and produces an image of it. Each discipline must cope with discontinuities within
it at either the level of fact, theory, paradigm, episteme or interpretation of Being.
Thus it acts in relation to the meta-domain of the world to survive these
discontinuities. It produces a great negative wave which appears as the
embodiment of the negative fourfold that stands opposite the positive fourfold
which it passes thought the always already lost origin of the world view to attempt
to ensure continuity of itself. We use the fact that just as discontinuity underlies
continuity, so to continuity underlies discontinuity in a Yin in Yang and Yang in
Yin swirling formation. We use anti-emergence in the form of produced anti-Firsts
to assure continuity between disconnected moments via the resonances of the
inherent synergy of the Void as interpenetration. This is why the negative fourfold
exists as the undercurrent of our worldview, never faced, always hidden and turned
away from as we run from the facticity of death even as we attempt to overcome it
with a supreme act of will to power. Within the Indo-european tradition this is done
through the sacrifice which harkens back to the primordial sacrifice of the cosmic
representative. It is only in the Indo-European tradition that this is conceived as the
death of god. The action of producing the negative fourfold as the anti-soliton
formation, the dark singular wave, opposite the singular wave of the positive
945
fourfold is the means of using the continuity running secretly though the inherent
discontinuity of existence. The negative fourfold defines anti-emergence just as the
positive fourfold defines emergence. The two together define the world as a
synergy rooted in the Void.
8. The Computational Basis of Magician Constellations
If we understand that Magician meta-system produces anti-Firsts which are passed

between universes as a means of creating implicit continuities made possible by that
Bohm calls the implicate order of the universe, i.e. its proto-gestalt infrastructure,
then we have defined the measure of the minimal Magician meta-system as one
which is complex enough to produce anti-Firsts. Of course anti-Firsts are the
opposite of emergence and only emergent events have the necessary complexity to
produce their duals. So Magician meta-systems must have a complexity that
addresses each of the four levels of ideation and be configured in such a way as to
use this to project anti-Firsts across the discontinuous boundaries between moments
using the synergy implicit in the Void as a backdrop off which these anti-Firsts are
bounced so they appear in the next moment as the synergy around which
propensities, traces, signs and forms coalesce. But understanding this strange
structural minimality of the Magician meta-system does not explain their
computational structure. We need to understand the minimal computational
structure that would support such a meta-system and this is no mean task. It has
already been shown that Magician systems are built on looped cascades of
annihilation with side effects. We have noted the necessary presence of multi-
tasking to simulate continuity in such a system that violates Churches thesis. But
now we have another piece of the puzzle which is that just as discontinuity
underlies the illusion of continuity which Churches thesis depends on, so to there is
an inherent causal continuity between discontinuous moments of the computation.
We will use this principle to attempt to place bounds on the computational basis of
Magician meta-systems.
Given that Magicians are inherently multi-threaded the question becomes what is
the minimal structure necessary to make multi-threads cooperate. Here we are
assuming that annihilation side effects do not produce the self again but must
produce something different. Thus the difference must be complex enough to
record the form/pattern of the previous incarnation. Thus we see that in multi-
tasking between annihilation cycle threads we must have a way for the whole of the
Magician to be mirrored within the part which is running at the moment. Now we
946
have already noted in a previous part of this essay that the reflexive special system
has this property. It is a quaternion externally and its nodes are quaternions
internally. Thus we can posit that the Magician system is made up of multi-
threaded nodes operating with different quantitative kinds which approximate the
structure of the quaternions. Thus the quaternions within the threads mirror the
structure of the quaternion of the whole autopoietic structure. Then it is through the
mirroring of the reflexive level that this system cooperates between its different
time slices to create a coherent autopoietic formation. This mutual mirroring where
every part is quaternionic just as the whole is quaternionic allows the mirroring
which makes possible the creation of an internal continuity between the
discontinuous threads that confer autonomy on the Magician system.
To produce a computational theory we need to combine the following elements:

• Annihilation looped cascades that create multi-threaded computational cycles.
• The laws of form and pattern which give us the means of expressing the formatting and
content of the tapes and finite state automata of the turing machine.
• The Matrix Logic that provides the logical superset that combines and controls the laws
of form and pattern
• The computational embodiment within the spacetime/timespace Matrix.
We start by looking at embodiment. We have already noted in previous papers that

there are four minimal embodiments of computations within spacetime. We
combine these to give slices of Turing machines where each slice represents a
particular minimal design method. It is through these embodiments that
computational systems function within spacetime/timespace and it is also through
them that we understand that functioning. These minimal embodiments actually
can be produced from a simpler structure which is comprised of the following
elements:
• Value
• Range
• Variable
• Assignment
• Transition
• Action
From these information flows and comparisons between variables as well as

hierarchical state transition diagrams can be built. So if we add these elements to
947
the concept of the looped and multi-threaded annihilation loops then we get a theory
of minimal embodiment from which we can build up any computational
superstructure. Notice that the minimal bi-recursive vector equilibrium (dual
annihilating minimal systems interpenetrated) has to have at least four Firsts (A, B,
C, D). It is clear that the Variable is a minimal representation of form and that value
is a minimal representation of Signs which exist within the pure diacriticality of the
binary distinction between signs whose scope is reduced to form a range. The range
is a constraint on pure diacriticality and we can see that constraint as a trace. Thus
in the above set three of the elements are given us by the basic constituents of Firsts
which contain Form, Sign, and Trace levels as well as propensities that connect the
Signs and Traces. What we do not have equivalents for are the Assignment,
Transition and Action components except in as much as traces are formed by
actions. We noted what actions Magicians must display but not where those actions
appeared from in our speculations. We will note that each of these dynamical
aspects have duals
Figure 151:
sequence ------- side effect = action
jump --------- transition
branch -------- assignment
We note that the duals complete the picture of computation by adding the ability to
create order among the actions, side effects and assignments. Normally in
computation things will occur sequentially unless there is an unconditional jump or
a conditional branching. The branching may cause a state transition, and action or
an assignment. A sequence is opposite an action because each is composed of
monolithic units one occurs in time alone whereas the other occurs in the space of
all behaviors. Jumps are transitions purely in time whereas transitions effect
discontinuous changes in the space of all states. Both branches and assignments
have values associated with them. One of them uses that value to make a if or while
branch while the other uses it to actualize a variable. A jump with a branch back is
a while loop and a jump with a branch forward is an if statement. These three
(sequence, branch, and jump) are the basis for structured programming which any
algorithm can be reduced to. If we combine the three constructs of structured
programming with the three kinds of major effects (action, transition, and
assignment) we get a complete computational discipline with which to view our
Firsts.
948
Figure 152:
Form Sign trace propensity

| | | |
First=.Variable with Value based on Code of Bits
:
jump :
A ------ B
|\ /|_______ action = side effect
sequence_____| \ / |
assignment___|__/ \__|_______ transition
|/ \|
D ------- C
branch
Firsts as micro-emergences are irreducible. They appear in the minimal looping

annihilation cascade. When we see these Firsts in relation to the six basic
computational behaviors then we have the basis of a computational theory of Firsts.
We note that it is each multitasking thread is produced by a multi-threading that
would execute these actions. The actions along with the Variables and Values of
the Firsts will allow us to produce the minimal embodiments in spacetime along
with their combination into algorithms. In our minimal methods we produce
representations of the relations between design elements abstracted from their
embedding in algorithms. It is the algorithms that can produce the problem of
delocalization as design elements are smeared out within the sequence and
embedded in strange cyclical structures that operate in time via branches and jumps.
What our tetrahedron or minimal system of Firsts and computational structures
gives us is that we see that Firsts can have any of the possible relations that can exist
between computational structures. For instance, two Firsts can be in sequence.
One variable’s value can be assigned to another variable. Once variable can be
compared to another to cause a branch. A transition may be from one state value to
another. A side effect can change one value to another or produce any imaginable
transformation between variables. Jumps can be from one labeled memory location
to another. Variables may be sequenced in any order. All these possibilities and
more are possible. What we are striving for here is some image of the minimal
computational formation which we connect to Firsts that appear in the minimal
Annihilation mosaic. There are many different ways to formulate this minimal
computational structure. We have chosen a way that looks at minimal
embodiments, isolates the six structures that compose them, then we see that three
949
of these can be ascribed to the Firsts themselves while the other three can be seen as
minimal behaviors that when paired with the structured programming constructs
gives us the capability to build both design level representations but also
algorithmic representations within the multi-tasking threads of the annihilation
multi-recursive looped cycles.
However this does not tell us how we should record the results of our computations
or the programs that will drive our computations which reside in state tables and
turing tapes. For these we choose a combination of the Laws of Form and their
opposite the laws of pattern. If we look carefully at this elegant notation we see that
all expressions can be reduced to forms no more than two layers deep. Thus such
expressions allow us to write the format of the tape and understand where the line is
that distinguishes the values within those formatted areas. If we add to Spencer-
Brown’s concept the idea of the blank place holder then we can produce codes to
express values below that formatting line. We have also mentioned the concept of
the turing mobius strip which has the state table (program) inscribed on one side of
the tape and the data inscribed on the other. We noted that such a formulation has
two temporalities that plays along the edges of the tape. One is the temporality of
the execution of the data and the other is the temporality that encompasses it of the
execution of the state machine. The interaction between these two temporalities
that we discovered to be the duals of the two proto-imaginaries is controlled by the
six computational behaviors already noted that connect the Firsts. The laws of
pattern give us the capability of reading and writing that tape considering it as a
pure pattern.
To this we would only add the Matrix Logic as the means of making logical
manipulations based on the truth values of relations between computational
elements. Matrix Logic was invented by August Stearn as the superset of normal
logic that combines computation and logical manipulation in a single system. It
approximates the normal logic but gives us the ability to do computations on logical
operators alone. It is this capability that allows us to approach the modeling of
autopoietic systems. Autopoietic systems have hypercycles which exist in the No-
where beyond the embodied system. Matrix Logic operators can form rings that
allow the creation of hypercycles and are connected to the embodied system via
truth values that give them the necessary orthogonality to the embodied system.
The cycles of logic operators operates at right angles to the cycles of annihilation
which form the computational substrata of Magician systems as they multi-task and
simulate continuities within a discontinuous time stream. But we note that at the
950
logic level there may be continuities that exist orthogonally to the cycles of
annihilation that follow their own rules beyond the cycles of annihilation which are
controlled by the structures of computational embodiment.
This has been a sketch only of a possible computational representation of a

Magician system. It is one that would allow us to build up the minimal methods
and see the paradoxes arise within the software layer that would lead to the AI and
Alife techniques that will allow us to model living/cognitive creatures which then
learn and become reflexive. A much more exact picture is needed which would
show how Laws of Form notation can be animated computationally and combined
with the minimal elements of computational embodiment. The only way to do this
would be to build a simulation that used the Laws of Form to construct
computational mobius strips controlled by Matrix Logic and executed on the basis
of annihilation loops. Here we are only speculating as to what elements should be
put together to make a full simulation of the Magician constellation which is true to
our insights into the nature of the meta-system. Unless we can articulate the vision
we cannot make progress toward that end. Here we are interested in the greater
vision and how the macro pieces fit together in a computationally viable simulation
of Magician constellations based on annihilation mosaics.
What is the computational basis? Minimal interleaved annihilation mosaics. We

allow their cycles to be controlled by a series of behaviors within the multitasking
regimes. Three of those behaviors give us structured programming constructs by
which any algorithm can be constructed. Three of those give us the actions between
Variables with Values out of ranges which allow us along with the Variable and
Value structure of Firsts to create the minimal computational embodiments. When
we add the Firsts themselves and Matrix Logic then we have a complete theory of
the computational basis of Magician systems. The Firsts allow us to place values in
variables and they also have actions associated with them as well as the bonds that
would create the network of computationally active Firsts. Matrix Logic allows us
to guide the computation logically and construct the hypercycles out of those
operators. And how do we write our programs? It is with an extended version of the
Kauffman-Varela Spencer-Brownian Laws of Form. That version must add
computational extensions to the laws of form notation to express the programs on
the computational mobius strip. For instance jumps or tunneling are allowed but it
is not thought that these might be conditional branches. Assignments and
transitions as well need to be added to the notation. A myriad of little adjustments
need to be made so that this notation developed to represent circuits can represent
951
programs that execute. Of course any programming language would do but we like
the idea of operating at the meta-level that the Laws of Form stakes out above the
level where quality and quantity split. Given an appropriate computational
rendering of the Laws of Form it would then be possible to write programs for the
multi-threaded annihilation mosaics on computational mobius strips. If such
programs could simulate solitons then we would have an excellent model of the
kinds of systems we have been discussing:
• Multi-threaded -- due to multi-recursiveness

• Multi-numerical -- with the kinds of numbers
• Multi-qualitiative -- with the trigrams of qualities
• Multi-computational -- with multiple computational mobius strips
• harmonic and ultra stable -- with soliton wave formations
•
9. Sociality of Magician Constellations
We need to consider the inherent social nature of Magicians. We know that they
appear as groups that act together on each other to produce the seeds for the next
moment. But what needs to be noted is that there is an inner connection between
Magicians and annihilation through which their social nature is affirmed. This is to
say that Magicians call for their own annihilation either together or separately. The
difference between these two alternatives is the difference between competition and
cooperation. In the cooperative scenario we see Magicians as deciding together
when a given moment is over after the seeds of the next moment have been laid
down. In such a case the Magicians as a group have had time to unfold their entire
life-cycle and so they die off together allowing the next moment to come into being
with the seeds of the next generation of Magicians. On the other hand we can see
sub-groups of Magicians competing in which case any one Magician could start the
cascade of annihilations. In that case the advantage of starting the annihilation
process must be weighed by each Magician or sub-group of Magicians. In either
case annihilation plays a social role comparable to the social role of creation of wild
card Magicians was posited to play in an earlier paper where the social group as a
whole acting as a filter was seen to produce Magicians or anti-Magicians to
influence and skew the results of the annihilation phase of the life-cycle by which
the seeds of the Magicians in the next moment are produced. Thus unexpectedly
both annihilation and creation have inherent social implications within the
952
Magician meta-system computational formalism.
Here we merely state that this relation between creation/annihilation and the social
aspect of Magicians needs to be studied further. One way to do that would be to
introduce Game Theory into the annihilation process so that utilities and outcomes
played a role in annihilation and creation scenarios. The group as a whole would
also be considered a player so that it might serve as a filter by creating Magicians
and anti-Magicians to balance the plays of the individual Magicians. Applying such
a gaming viewpoint with the addition of groups and sub-groups as players would
give an explicit social basis for the dynamics of creation and annihilation. Games
could be either cooperative or competitive. The prized outcomes would be the
results of the annihilation contest. The Magician cohort as a whole and subgroups
of Magicians would have weighted input into these negotiations and plays as well
so that our Magician games did not just deal with individuals but the full
complexity of the social situation.
From gaming it is a short step to economics. We note that if we assume that if

creation and destruction of Magicians as well as inscription, mutual action, voting
and annihilation manipulation all took energy and that energy was a scarce resource
then an economics of creation and annihilation within Magician meta-systems
would be possible. If we posit power relations between Magicians then we could
institute political systems. In such systems we could attempt to mirror the
autopoietic organization of Plato’s “second best” city described in the Laws which
is the first description of an autopoietic system in the Western tradition. Plato
attempts to achieve perfect balance between the City and the Household the Laws.
The city is, of course, the totality of Magicians of a certain species. If we posit
other species of Magicians exist then we can create an ecology between “cities” in
which Magicians of different kinds have trade and pursue warfare and other kinds
of inter-city transactions. Likewise we can posit that households are the genetic
continuities from moment to moment that link Magicians across time. If these
genetic continuities are associated with other continuities then this grouping of
continuities can be considered as a “household.” A household is after all a
recognized means of passing material property and genetic material from
generation to generation. Plato sought a certain balance between the Household and
the City that approximated the Autopoietic system. Both of these groups are meta-
systems or images of the proto-gestalt. Both are arenas in which individuals come
to exist and arenas within which they operate based on certain rules or laws. If we
simulate these formations with Magician Systems then we see that the meta-
953
systems of Magicians can have a concrete social formation which balances the
larger meta-system group and the smaller meta-system group making differing
demands on the individual Magician. In this way we see how a truly social system
of Magicians arises as the proto-gestalt splits into encompassing and encompassed
meta-systems within the same domain. It is amazing that Plato in the first Systems
Theory book concerning the laws of cities of men already understood the
Autopoietic system in such detail as a social possibility. It is unfortunate that the
Western Tradition modeled all its cities on the Republic instead which was
introduced by Plato as an alternative to show the consequences of not following the
Autopoietic formation in building cities.1
Here it suffices to say that the social organization of Magicians may be very
complex and may show different proto-gestalts analogous to households and cities
might form which cause split allegiances in the Magicians just as we see them in
Human society. The spliting of the proto-gestalts to produce complex domains
where a Magician has multiple origins of various levels of logical typing produces
another level at which the autopoietic formation may occur with genetic and
property level proto-gestalts, “households” become autopoietic nodes within the
larger species of Magicians that represent the “city” in relation to other cities.
Here we just mention briefly the relevance of the work of Jane Jacobs, The
Economy of Cities. She turns many of the assumptions about cities upside down
among them the fact that agriculture comes before trade. She sees trade as the
prerequisite to agriculture. And more importantly she sees trade as the addition of
new kinds of work to old kinds of work. Thus here model of economy of cities is
very close to the analysis of kinds of work using the Magician system formalism in
a social context to model chaotic or non-routine work processes in organizations.
Jane Jacobs work allows us to put the work of Plato on the Autopoietic city
formation into terms that we can understand from the point of view of work
analysis. Cities are, among other things, places where different kinds of work are
created and added to each other as a basis of trade which in fact is the basis of city
life. Similarly so are large organizations within modern society. Work in such
organizations on rare occasions form autopoietic rings which is the archetypal
perfect self-organizing form of work in which a ring of essential transformations is
produced that is self-balancing and self-feeding. To the outside organization it
looks like a vicious circle but inside it is the most efficient sociotechnical
1.See The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void by the Author.
954
productive formation any society can produce. We experience the qualitative

difference and say that such a team has “clicked.” Ultimately we wish to develop
the magician formalism as a means of modeling the chaotic processes and to show
how autopoietic social formations may exist and arise out of the chaos. The fact we
can see examples of these autopoietic formations not just in autopoietic theory and
its study of biological systems but also in Acupuncture Theory and Plato’s second
best city presented systematically in the Laws gives us hope that eventually it will
be possible to show experimentally that autopoietic viable systems appear in social
and computational forms and that these may be married in Computational
Sociology as a fundamental discipline building on Artificial Intelligence and
Artificial Life which approximates a minimal Artificial Society or community.
Distributed Artificial Intelligence and the Ecology of Artificial Life systems point
toward the necessity of this kind of new level of emergent phenomena that needs to
be studied through computational experimentation and theorizing working together
to propound a model of the computational aspect of society in its minimal formation
that makes Symbolic Interaction possible within the emergent social layer of
phenomena.
10. The Orthogonality of Magician Constellations from GST
We say that Magician meta-systems are orthogonal to GST but we need to make
clear what that orthogonality means. If we take Klir’s epistemological frame work
as a starting place we can build a picture of the way Magician constellations jut out
from GST. The Klir epistemological framework is as follows:
Figure 153:
• Generative Systems
• Data Systems
• Source Systems
• Object Systems
Each of these systems description levels have structural and process wings which
extend to and infinity of meta-levels. These wings also display reversibility so that
there are portions of the wings that combine structure with process giving one or the
other dominance. Also we can stretch out the epistemological framework by
showing that there is a knowledge/living level above the generative level. This
level corresponds to the autopoietic system. The autopoietic system as an image of
955
an organism is the root metaphor for all systems. Once we attain the level of
knowledge we realize that the four meta-levels of learning defined by Bateson arise
out of that level. From the point of view of artificial life these become meta-levels
of adaptation, flexibility, and evolution. These meta-levels of learning which define
the reflexive level of systems ends at meta-level five in the unthinkable.
Figure 154:
• Unthinkable
• meta-meta-meta-learning
• meta-meta-learning
• meta-learning
• learning
• knowledge + living = autopoietic
• generative system = program
• data system = variables and supports
• source system = attributes and backgrounds
• object system
The wings of any given level might look like this:
Figure 155:
Separate Wings
infinity infinity
meta-meta-meta-structure meta-meta-meta-process
meta-meta-structure meta-meta-process
meta-structure meta-process
structure process
structured process process structure
meta-structured process meta-process structure
meta^2-structure meta-process meta^2-process meta-structure
meta^3-structure meta^2-process meta^3-process meta^2-structure
infinity infinity
Interfering Wings
Notice that for each level there are structure and process wings that independently
go off to infinity. But there are also infinite levels of interferences between
structure and process where one is dominates over the other. The separate wings
956
tending toward infinite meta-levels approaches the unthinkable in the form of

infinite complexity of systems which is the study of complex systems theory. The
unthinkable as infinite complexity is the opposite of the unthinkable as finite block
to comprehension and understanding that occurs at the fifth meta-level of learning.
But we can contrast these two approaches to the unthinkable with the interferences
of the wings of process and structure. This interference has two aspects which are
external and internal. Externally the interferences appear as two views of the same
thing slightly shifted in dominance. But there is also the single non-dual view of
that interval whose phases appear externally. We see this in the case of the special
systems. They each represent a kind of reversibility between different aspects:
• psychic/social = reflexive special system

• living/cognitive = autopoietic special system
• pattern/form = dissipative special system
In each of the special systems there is a reversibility between the two aspects that
are non-dually connected as what Merleau-Ponty calls the Chiasm. We can project
meta-levels of process and structure on these chiasms with out really seeing their
actual nature as reversible non-dual wholes. Thus the entire set of infinite
interferences between process and structure where one dominates over the other is
an approximation of the chiasm of the special systems which is their inner reality.
When we talk about the reversible chiasm of the special systems I would like to use
the word intaglio. An intaglio is an etching on stone that is concave but when
frosted and viewed through the stone looks like a three dimensional patterned form.
There are works of art which have intaglio of male and female figures on either side
of the glass sculpture so it looks as if these figures are intertwined but all that
actually exists is the glass making up the space between the intertwined dual
intaglio figures. Non-dual reversible chiasma are like these intaglio. The substance
of the chiasm is really what exists not the two aspects that are seen when it is
viewed in one way or another. These chiasmic figures approximate under the
auspices of Wild Being true non-duality which is associated with emptiness which
is the view of the chiasm without aspects. In other words non-dual thought,
perception, or action is when the chiasm does not appear dual to the perceiver. In
other worlds there is a non-dual reality to the psychosocial beyond the chiasm
between the psychic and the social. If we saw the chiasm from within the
957
envelopment of emptiness it would appear in that non-aspect. Emptiness is a non-

experiential non-conceptual mode of knowing and living in which the
interpenetration of all things becomes manifest.
This analysis of the wings and the chiasm beyond the wings of process/structure
gives us the following four relations:
Figure 156:
Wild Being Hyper Being
Chiasm Finite Unthinkability
process/structure Beyond the meta-levels
internal of learning
Magicians constellation
HOLLOW
proto-gestalt
Reversible Aspects Infinite Complexity

process over structure Separate structure and
structure over process process wings of
interferences meta-levels
external
We note that the internal and external view of the chiasm are expressions of Wild
Being and unthinkablity in both the finite and infinite guises is the expression of
Hyper Being. Between these two kinds of Being that occur when we extend the
GST epistemological framework there is a place defined for the manifestation of the
Magicians. We will call this place orthogonal to GST the “hollow.” We see that
GST itself is an attempt to deal with changes in form by building a formal-structural
system. As such it attempts to render structuring and process present-at-hand with
perfect theoretical availability of Pure Presence kind of Being. But all we have to
do is note that systems are gestalts not objects and we immediately turn the GST
framework into an explication of Process Being. It describes processes by which
structures are transformed and where time interacts with static forms frozen in Pure
Presence. When we notice that the Epistemological Framework has extensions that
end in finite and infinite unthinkablity and that it describes the internal and external
aspects of reversibility then we see how the two other kinds of Being enter into and
are implicit within this model. We see that these two hidden kinds of Being interact
958
each with the Epistemological Framework in two ways and when we place these
dual actions in relation to each other we realize that there is a gap between them
which defines the orthogonal meta-system of the Magicians. What this says is that
the proto-gestalt is hidden behind the structural system that defines the gestalt
system. Magician constellations are one way to express the proto-gestalt so we can
see the Magicians as a meta-system that fills this hollow between Wild Being and
Hyper Being.
Within the Hollow behind GST where the proto-gestalt hides as the origin of GST
we can see the action of the Magician meta-system is to define the karmic action
with respect to the proto-gestalt. The Magician system life-cycle defined in the last
section as the pairwise combination of the kinds of relations within the special
system and GST gives an additional component of dynamism at the trace level that
express Hyper Being and relating to the propensities that emanate from Wild Being.
Individual systems emanate from the proto-gestalt as the always already lost origin
of gestalts. The proto-gestalt can be understood as the precession of the meta-
system as it emanates systems. When we describe this precession we are moving to
a realm where time has a different character.
11. Norns and the Primal Scene
We are moving from the surface time such as that described by Husserl in Internal
Time Consciousness which underlies the projection of continuous time back to a
more primordial time that appears within the history of the Indo-european world
view. That time is best described by the primal scene of the Well and the Tree.
Here we are speaking of the Proto-Indoeuropean mythic image of the world tree and
the wells that which provide the water of life to its roots. In Norse myth this tree is
Yddrasil and the three wells that are entangled in is roots. The upper most well is
Mirmir where the Norns take water and clay from the well and place it on the trunk
of the tree and thereby maintain the tree from which all forms within the world
arise. An analysis of this myth appears in the author’s book The Fragmentation Of
Being And The Path Beyond The Void. In that analysis the signifier of the Norns
was not explored very deeply. Now it is apparent that the Norns who distribute fate
to men in their act of watering the world tree are isomorphic to the Magician Meta-
system. In my analysis of this primal scene I already indicated that the World Tree
is an image of the Proto-Gestalt. The Wells are an image of what Plato calls the
source forms from which things appear. Ibn al-Arabi calls these the Ayn al-
Thabita. The water of life circulates from the well to the tree down to the roots and
959
back to the well. The water of life’s rotation is the movement of primordial time
which underlies all surface images of time such as the Matrix of spacetime/
timespace. Nietzsche calls this rotation the Eternal Return of the Same. It is the
cyclic movement of time that occurs in Endless time which is the dual of the linear
type of time that occurs in the in-time realm. The water of life is what the Chinese
call Jing Chi which is allotted at conception to each living thing. It is the closed
finite life-energy which is conserved by the autopoietic system. The Jing circulates
thought the meridians of the acupuncture system. But it does not circulate like
moving water. It is subtle energy that forms instantatons that jump from
acupuncture point to acupuncture point. The meridians are merely a heuristic
device for understanding the flow of these instantatons in the net of 361
acupuncture points. Its circulation is controlled by the hyper-cycle of the five
Hsing (energy transformations). The water of life circulates between the sources of
things and the proto-gestalt which precesses as it emanates specific gestalt
formations that appear in surface time. In this primal scene we are talking about the
underlying mechanism by which discontinuous regimes of systems are produced
out of an always already lost origin which is the proto-gestalt. Each thing has its
source that mirrors like a part of a hologram the whole world. The sources are the
key to interpenetration. As Shaykh al-Akbar says they exist from one aspect but do
not exist from another aspect. The sources are the origin of each organism that
unfolds. The DNA is merely the mechanism for unfolding the form but it is guided
by the subtle energy, Chi, and the intrinsic patterning of things, Li, by the template
of the source. When the thing manifests that manifestation is guided by a mirroring
relation with its source. The source itself contains the mirroring with the rest of the
world which gives that thing its place within the world. But the thing actually
comes into being emanating from the proto-gestalt not from the source. The source
is the origin in endless time which exists along side the proto-gestalt which is the
center of the vortex of primordial time. The Jing or water of life circulates between
the source and the proto-gestalt. That circulation is the basis of the autopoietic
system that appears as a projection within the Matrix of spacetime/timespace.
Looking at the relation between the primal scene in the imaginal endless-time and
the autopoietic system in-time we see that the autopoietic system presents itself as a
body with a boundary. Upon that boundary across the body are spread out the
acupuncture points. Embedded in that body in the no-where of its inner boundary
we see the five Hsing which act as a hypercycle. Finite subtle energy called Jing
flows around the acupuncture points jumping from point to point. As it flows it
catalyzes the energies that come from breath and digestion, that is the gross
960
energies. But that energy that is flowing in the in-time creature, the closed
autopoietic system, is also flowing in a cycle of eternal return between the source of
the creature as a form/pattern structural system and the proto-gestalt of the creature
as a meta-system. The Jing is finite because it flows in a double movement partially
in-time and partially in the endless-time realm. The autopoietic system is never
entirely separate from the source of its pattern/form or its always already lost origin.
We cannot understand the subtlety of the acupuncture system within the lost
Chinese science without understanding this double connection via the Jing that
makes the autopoietic system function within the endlesstime and in-time realms
simultaneously. The time of the instantatons jumping between acupuncture points
might be related to Jung’s idea of synchroniety. The energy appears to be
simultaneously everywhere within the system yet it has a definite precession that
connects with the hours of the day in a cycle. That is just one of the cycles. There
is also the sixty day cycle which represent the connection between the twelve
earthly branches and the ten celestial stems. This cycle is represented by the group
A5 which is the group of the icosahedron and the pentahedron in four dimensional
space. The pentahedron is two mobius strips intertwined giving precisely the
formation of the generation and control cycles of the five Hsing. These and the
other cycles related to the energy flows within the body are the manifestation of the
eternal return of the same circulation of the Jing in endlesstime. A science that can
only see in-time linear flows within the Matrix of surface spacetime/timespace can
never understand the deeper science that sees the relation between the in-time and
the imaginal endless-time cycles. The creature according to Chinese science exists
in the interspace between these two temporal regimes, the linear surface timespace/
spacetime and the cyclical primal time of the circulation of the water of life.
Magician systems give us a model for this karmic circulation of the waters of life.
Within the Tathagata Gharba, womb of thusness coming, there is the alaya vijyana
or storehouse consciousness. Within the storehouse consciousness which may be
seen as related to the collective unconscious, the seeds of causality from one
moment to another are laid down. Since the universe is destroyed and created every
moment causation cannot move between incarnations directly as there is no
substance to sustain them. But instead they may perfume from one incarnation of
the universe to another and this is the way Karmic causes propagate across the
discontinuous train of momentary universes to produce apparent causation. Karma
is cyclical time just like the endless rotation of the water of life. It is an image of
that rotation within the endlesstime realm. Each universe appears as a system from
the proto-gestalt. The universe interpenetrates because the source of each thing is a
961
part of a hologram of the pluriverse. So each thing mirrors the rest of the universe
through the lens of the reflexive autopoietic system. Together sources and proto-
gestalt give rise to successive universes with a family resemblance which
interpenetrate and continually reaffirm the recurrence of the Same.
The Magician systems are like the Norns in the sense that they simulate the weaving
of fate. The Chinese character for manifestation contains a sub-character for the
sun and a sub-character for fire with threads strung between them. On the side is
the sub-character for a shell. This says to us that manifestation is the emanation of
golden threads from the source of things to the things themselves. The source of
light is the sun and the mundane light we can control in the world is fire. The
mundane light is connected to the source of all light by subtle threads. These
threads pass across the layers of the shell which represent the emanation from the
source to the surface expression of that source in things. So we can see in this
subtle image that the threads cross the threshold of the layers of the shell producing
a weaving. That weaving is the pattern of fate. We can see the Norns as the
weavers of fate. They take the water of life from the well along with the clay. The
clay represents the sedimentation of past actions that influence future unfoldings of
events. The clay has the same function as the karma in the Hindu/Buddhist image
of causation. We note that the clay is probably taken out of the well in woven
baskets. Fired woven baskets filled with clay are hypothesized to be the origin of
clay pots. The designs on the pots are seen as holdovers from the impression of the
weaving left on the fired pots from the baskets that were used to form them before
throwing pots became a standard technique for production. Thus when the Norns
place the water and clay onto the tree it is sure that the clay would hold the imprints
of the baskets that it was carried from the well to the tree in. That imprinting of the
clay added to the tree is the inscribing of the design of fate by the Norns. In other
words the Norns influence the vectors that come from past action as they pass the
record of those actions back to the proto-gestalt. Similarly we can see that
Magician systems attempt to influence the future by collusion in the process of
annihilation so that the seeds for the future moment are skewed in each moment.
We can see the Magician systems as taking the seeds from the past moment and
transferring them to the next moment but in the process they change them based on
their interaction and inscription activities in the present moment. They perform a
task exactly analogous to that of the Norns according to the Delphic oracle. The
distributors of fate also skew fate as they weave it into the fabric of life. Even the
Gods must abide by the decisions of the Norns. The Norns represent the role of
women as pattern makers as the dual to men the form makers. The two archetypal
962
roles of women in ancient Greece were as water bearers to from the Well to the
proto-gestalt household and as producers of weaving. In these women are seen as
dual archetypal reflections of the Norns.
12. Fourfolds Embracing
The Norns are the embodiments of the negative fourfold which is attributed to
women as the positive fourfold is attributed to men.
Figure 157:
Role of Women Role of Men
Negative Fourfold Positive Fourfold
Night Light Earth
Covering Uncovering Heaven
Chaos Order Mortals
Abyss Transcendence Immortals
The negative fourfold comes from the Theogony of Aristophanes in the BIRDS. It
is a clear picture of the inverse of the Positive fourfold developed into Western
Metaphysics and archaeologically recovered by Heidegger from the words of
Socrates in the Gorges. The negative fourfold has always been submerged by our
tradition. It is the shadow of the positive fourfold. If we take the opposite of each
of the negative fourfolds elements then we see an even better picture of the aspects
of the positive fourfold than the elements that Socrates names. As Heidegger says
each of these elements internally and mutually mirror each other. They form a
minimal system that is the metaphysical ground of the Western worldview.
The clearing in Being is signified by the spreading Branches of the World Tree.
Within those branches every creature finds its ecological home and niche. It is in
those spreading branches that the positive fourfold unfolds to make a clearing of
manifestation that sheds light, uncovers, orders, and transcends. But the opposite of
those branches are the roots of the tree that are hidden from the light, covered over,
rooted in the primordial chaos on the edge of the Abyss of groundlessness. The
proto-gestalt connects these two fundamental metaphysical minimal systems and
balances them. This is why the world can come into begin as a place of contrasts
between light and dark. When we look at the extensions to the GST
epistemological framework that attempt to unearth its underlying ontological basis
we see that the four meta-levels of Being act as a manifestation of the positive and
963
negative fourfolds. GST attempts to model the world of systems that appear in the
world within the Matrix of timespace/spacetime. We can call the Matrix itself the
interpenetrating embodiment of heaven and earth. The heaven is the hyperspaces
though which interpenetration occur within the earth of the Matrix. The highest
order of systems that appear there are organisms which are the archetypes of all
systems. The autopoietic is the basis for our view of all systems in the world.
These autopoietic organisms are the mortal. When we look at them in terms of
infinities of embedded structures and processes we see that complexity tends
toward unthinkable infinity. When we look at the epistemological hierarchy we see
that after adding knowledge/living level that there is generated the meta-levels of
learning that are associated with the reflexive. These end in a finite unthinkability
at learning meta-level five. Both the infinite and finite limits of unthikability are
indications of what lies beyond the mortal. These limits indicate the immortal
which is the polarity opposite mortality. We know immortality by reversing the
attributes of the mortal and thus we project on the unthinkable the Gods. But the
gods are merely projections of the mortal as the duals of themselves on the screen of
the limits of the mortal. Thus we see clearly that the extended epistemological
framework originally proposed by Klir is an image of what Heidegger calls the
positive fourfold. When we look at the negative fourfold and reverse its attributes
we get another more dynamic model of the positive fourfold as the dynamic
clearing in Being. It is a place within which order manifests. If order did not
manifest within structural-formal systems then we would be lost. Order appears
from no-where to create patterns in dissipative systems. The opposite of this
ordering of pattern is the transcendence of formal boundaries. This is best
represented by George Spencer-Browns Laws Of Form where crossing and
recrossing a boundary puts you back where you started. Laws Of Form assumes
you can cross that boundary, it assumes transcendence. Transcendence creates all
the power relations within the clearing of Being expressing the Will to Power that is
the opposite of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Will to Power always obscures
the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. So we see that Order from No-where gives us
patterning and Transcendence gives us the dynamics of forms. These patterns and
forms appear in showing and hiding relations called gestalts within manifestation.
Showing and hiding relations appear as the dynamics of uncovering. It is Oedipus
who signifies to us the essence of uncovering. He is the archetype of all
philosophical, scientific and technological endeavors which seek to uncover the
hidden and make everything available. Uncovering is the basic dynamic of all
gestalts and it is from that dynamic that systems are projected. Systems are viewed
by observers. Subjects and Systems are trapped in a relativistic embrace as
964
explicated by Jumarie in terms of the role of relativistic information. The observers

uncover the dynamics of the system and attempt to understand it by moving up the
epistemological framework of levels of system understanding and simulation
leading to knowledge. Finally we see that there is the light which appears in the
world. We think of manifestation in terms of light because it is in the light that we
can see things clearly. But we also can recall the Chinese character for
manifestation which shows light as golden threads between the sources and the
things. Thus we can also see in the light these threads of fate that are woven within
the clearing in Being. The Firsts are micro-emergent events that appear within the
clearing in Being. They are the infinitely variable bits of dirt that make up the clay.
But the clay is held together by the water of life and in this form as mud all the
relations and configurations of the Firsts are formed. These relations and
configurations are the woven pattern of the light. Through the light we see these
relations and configurations of the particles of mud (Firsts). But also through that
light we distance the phenomena viewing it thought the Cartesian window on the
world that sees the world at an infinite distance. So light reveals but also distances.
Light allows the observer to maintain his distance from the system. Light is an
image of transcendence of the observer over the forms just as the forms transcend
the patterns by writing boundaries that cut across the patterns. So we can see here
that Light, Transcendence, Order, and Uncovering all play crucial roles in the
dynamics of the clearing in Being.
But when we continue to look at the extended GST hierarchy we see that it not only
embodies the Positive Fourfold but also embodies the negative fourfold. We can
see the infinite unthinkable as an image of the Abyss. We can see the Finite
unthinkable as the image of Night because it is the point where the intellectual light
that understands things is put out because it cannot think a higher meta-level of
learning. We can think of the Structure covering Process or Process covering
Structure in infinite meta-levels of interference between the wings of structure and
process as manifesting covering from the negative fourfold. Finally we can see the
chiasms as the manifestation of chaos. It has already been established by the author
in Software Engineering Foundations: Software Ontology that Chaos is the
mathematical manifestation of Wild Being as Fuzzy Sets are the mathematical
manifestation of Hyper Being or as Statistics is the mathematical manifestation of
Process Being or as Calculus is the mathematical manifestation of Pure Presence
Being. Thus the chiasms viewed internally are chaotic in the sense that they are
completely made up of propensities or tendencies which are related to each other
chaotically. These propensities and tendencies are the substrate of the Firsts which
965
are micro-emergent things. They could not be genuinely emergent and novel if they
were not rooted in the propensities and tendencies of Wild Being. Thus all
emergent events that can be called genuine must emerge from the chaotic sea of
tendencies that pull in all directions and provide the skew that is given by the Norns
to the karmic causation that they transfer from universe to universe. The Norns are
visualized as being in endlesstime and so immune from the re-creation of the
universe in each instant. Magicians are their image in-time which answers the
question of the Buddhists how causation can move between moment universes.
Within Magician systems the skew is added by mutations which well up from the
field where individual Magicians or anti-Magicians are created randomly. So we
must say that Magician systems are more like the Buddhist Karmic case than the
Mythology of Norns in the Indo-European primal scene that posits an endless time
substrata. However, it is clear that the concept of the Alaya Vijyana, storehouse
consciousness, contains a hint that this endlesstime realm intersects with the in-time
realm in the Buddhist model.
The Negative Fourfold embraces the Positive Fourfold in a tantric intertwining

around the GST epistemological hierarchy. According to Aristophanes this
negative fourfold has its own dynamism. Blackwinged Night impregnates Erebus
(covering) to give rise to Eros. Eros impregnates Chaos in the Abyss to give rise to
the Birds and then in turn give rise to the elements in the form of Sky, Earth, Ocean
and Gods (Fire) which finally give rise to mankind. Note that the two
impregnations occur diagonally across the Hyper Being and Wild Being divide.
Eros as was discovered in the study The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path
Beyond The Void is a manifestation of Aphrodite which has five faces which show
her to be an archetype of the Autopoietic hyper-cyclic ring. Only one face appears
at a time and in this case Aphrodite appears as Eros. Then Eros brings Chaos
together with the Abyss to form the Birds. The Birds here are bragging that their
creation was prior to the Gods against whom they are rebelling as they try to garner
mans support in Aristophanes play. But for us the birds are the symbol of the
autopoietic nodes that self-organize the autopoietic system under the control of the
autopoietic hyper-cyclic ring (five Hsing). So we would easily relate the birds to
the Magicians of the Magician meta-system. They are the in-time image of the
karmic causality. As such we would see them as the nodes of the autopoietic
system as it is seen as moving though discontinuous time. In The Fragementation of
Being and the Path Beyond the Void a evidence for the relation in mythology
between the birds and autopoietic nodes is given in terms of the interpretation of
the myth of the Phoenix. In an earlier essay it was noted that these nodes are
966
quaternions embedded in social relations via the octave structure. These nodes
write patterns and connect to produce network forms like Grenander’s pattern
generators with their bonds. Only here the bonds are seen as dynamic rather than
static. The autopoietic nodes as quaternion Magicians within an octave framework
produce the computational basis for continuity from discrete universe to universe
that the autopoietic system is incarnated within. From this computational basis
which models chaotic processes comes the possibility of modeling non-chaotic
processes and from that the world as the positive fourfold appears. The positive
fourfold is the world that opens out thought the positing of continuity. The negative
fourfold is the image of the world shot thought with discontinuity. Mortals stand
within the mirroring of the positive fourfold and orient themselves toward their own
limits creating the image of the immortals. But more basic than the immortals are
the Norns that weave fate and whose decisions even the Gods must abide by
regardless of their pretense to omnipotence. The negative fourfold is produced by
the positive fourfold as its opposite in order to induce inner continuity between
discontinuous micro-universes by pushing the negative fourfold into the syerergy of
the Void so that its opposite the positive fourfold might pop up again in the next
momentous arising of the universe. Since the interpenetrating heavens understood
as the synergistic Void is pure what ever goes into them must come out again. It is
thought that the positive and negative fourfolds act something like the soliton/anti-
soliton pair which form a pulsating “breather” formation. This pulsating formation
is synchronized with the pulsation of the creation and destruction of the universe.
This is possible because of the epochal nature of creation. In an epoch the positive
fourfold is produced which is then transformed into its opposite and pushed into the
Void of the Heavens in its negative image. Then it unfolds within the successive
universes as the seeds of that sacrifice fructify as the positive fourfold which repeats
the process. The positive and negative fourfolds operate in relation to the creation
and destruction phases of the universe. The destructive phase turns the negative
fourfold image into the positive which then produces another negative image
repeating the process over and over to produce continuity (anti-emergence).
From this theogony of Aristophanes interpreted metaphysically we see that there is

an intimate connection between the autopoietic ring and the nodes of the autopoietic
system which in relation to discontinuous time may be seen as Magician systems,
the in-time image of the Norns. We can see this when we think about the Jing
which hops like instantatons from acupuncture point to acupuncture point. It’s
course is controlled by the five Hsing, transformations of energy. This hyper-cycle
guides the Jing energy to effect transformations in gross energy throughout the
967
body. What the Jing energy does in each case is eternally the same but timed by the
hyper-cycle balancing with other transformations so as to preserve the life of the
organism or maintain homeostasis.
The nodes of the autopoietic system must be seen in relation to underlying

discontinuous time function as Magicians which preserve the autopoietic system
across breaks in time. They karmicly propagate the internal and circular causation
of the autopoietic system which moves both directions around the autopoietic ring.
It is the Negative Fourfold that gives us an insight into the discontinuous world that
underlies the continuous world of the Positive Fourfold. This has been traditionally
the realm of women in our culture and has been hidden across the ages and
submerged as attention was focused only on the metaphysics of Ontological
Monism, or as Michael Henry says Transcendence Grounding itself. The dark
discontinuous world underneath the illusion of continuity of the bright clearing in
Being appears when we focus of the proto-gestalt and the sources and see that the
role of the Norns in endless time is mirrored by the Magicians within time. The
Magicians are the form of the autopoietic nodes as they deal with the reality of
discontinuous time against which they must attempt to preserve themselves by
means of collusion as they propagate themselves across time by perfuming the
seeds of the next moment by various side effects. Specifically this perfuming is
done by producing the anti-magician and pushing it into the Void where due to the
inherent synergy and purity the pure potential becomes the seed of a positive
Magician in the next instant. The negative fourfold is the metaphysical precursor
of the shadow of the Magician. So likewise the Magician/Anti-Magician pair is
exploiting the cycles of creation and destruction and the Homeopathic relation
which allows tinctures to have opposite effects to create inherent continuity in the
face of radical discontinuity.
So the model we are constructing sees the Jing as jumping as a four dimensional
soliton (an instantaton) between the nodes of the autopoietic system which
strangely enough are arrayed on the surface of the autopoietic system. We can
think of these nodes as super-breathers that is double soliton - double anti-soliton
pairs. They are equivalent to quaternons which provide the simple twist of fate that
skews the karmic causation as it is passed from moment to moment. Magicians are
the view of the nodes from the point of view of discontinuous time. Since they are
super-breathers they balance annihilation by interfering annihilation pairs. This is
why the whole system is really merely an illusion held in existence by a hairs breath
balancing act. The Jing that travels from node to node is nothing other than the
968
nodes themselves seen from another angle. The nodes are nothing other than knots
in the Jing. The hypercycles are the automatic balancing that maintains the
structure and prevents self-destruction. Because the nodes are Yang locuses of
celestial causation they appear on the outside surface of the autopoietic unity NOT
within it. What is within it across the boundary of No-whereness are the Yin five
Hsing that reflect the light of the source of the autopoietic unity. This same source
can be seen as a passive receptor of the light from the Yang acupuncture points.
The source is the unity that confers ordering on the autopoietic system via the action
of the five Hsing. The source gathers the multiplicity of the autopoietic system
together again.The Major Yang of the source shines light on the Minor Yin of the
Hsing. The Minor Yang of the acupuncture points sheds light on the Major Yin.
This circulation of the light allows the Water of life to flow through autopoietic
system by a mirroring of the endlesstime eternal recurrence of the Same. The set of
nodes arises from the proto-gestalt to create the gestalt of the autopoietic system.
Because of its tie to the proto-gestalt it can radically change its patterning and new
systematic showing and hiding relations can arise to replace the old ones in an
instant. The autopoietic system always points back to its origin in the proto-gestalt
even as it mirrors the source of its formation that gives it the template for its
organization and gives it access to interpenetration. The autopoietic system is
immersed in discontinuous time and so it must act as a Magician system in order to
produce seemingly continuous karmic causation from moment to moment in
imitation of the fate dispensation of the Norns which the Magicians reflect in-time.
So as we can see from this the autopoietic system in-time is completely intertwined
with the constituents of the primal scene in endlesstime. Both in-time and
endlesstime vanish in the emptiness of the out-of-time which points to the single
source of all causation which has no opposite.
This image renders acupuncture theory comprehensible perhaps for the fist time in
hundreds of years. Acupuncture theory treats the human being as an autopoietic
system. But that autopoietic system as it operates in time is intimately intertwined
with the endlesstime primal scene. The primal scene has different forms in different
cultures. In Islam we speak of the Pen and the Tablet which is a transformation of
the Well and the Tree. In the Chinese tradition they speak of Hun Tun or primary
chaos out of which things spring. The different openings were drilled in Hun Tun’s
body and that killed him. From that beginning sprung the Yin and the Yang
opposites in dual unfolding creation. Yin means the shadowy side of the hill where
as Yang stands for the bright lighted side of the hill. But in actuality Yang means
celestial causation and Yin is the terrestrial reception of that celestial causation.
969
Yin and Yang are the opposites that reflect the primal scene within the Chinese
tradition. The combinations of yins and yangs produce the trigrams and the
hexagrams which are the different possible qualitative states of a system as
progressive bisection occurs through symmetry breaking. We have seen in an
earlier essay in this series that this 2^n progression which is the wave view of the
things is opposite the N^2 particle view of phenomena. There is a series of heuristic
levels that unfold showing how things relate at varying levels of complexity. The
difference of the Chinese system to the other systems that separate endlesstime and
in-time is that the Chinese system sees the world as the Chiasm of these two rather
than seeing the phases. Thus Hun Tun is not located in endlesstime and Yin and
Yang are not located in endlesstime. But they are indicators of the primordial
chiasm of endlesstime and the in-time. So acupuncture theory takes advantage of
this and posits the view that the sources are the autopoietic system in a fundamental
way without the discontinuity between endlesstime and in-time. This can be done
because in the Chinese cosmology there is only Void and things. Things are their
own sources. In effect they concentrate on the unity of things with their sources as
they mirror each other in the out-of-time mirror.
As such acupuncture theory looks at the differentiation of the source into the
autopoietic ring and the gathering of the autopoietic nodes into the source. The
circulation of the water of life is for the Chinese system isomorphic with the
circulation of the Jing. What we see is a lattice in which the constituents of the
autopoietic system unfold out of the one as it arises from the Void and differentiate
and then fold back into the one as it disappears back into the Void. The Hsing are
yin in relation to the source but Yang in relation to the autopoietic system as the
circulation of Jing. As yang differentiated sources they interact with the four
elements to produce the twenty fundamental forms of interaction of Yin and Yang.
These twenty sources appear embedded beyond mirroring and substitution within
the I Ching hexagrams. They are the fundamental transformations within the social
context of the autopoietic system. The autopoietic system is outwardly quaternionic
and also its nodes are quaternionic so it has the same appearance outwardly and
inwardly, socially and psychologically. This sociality of the nodes within and the
outward sociality of the autopoietic systems between themselves sets up the
transformations of the hexagrams. The hexagrams represent the 5d sextahedron
that gives the degrees of freedom to the 4d pentahedron that define the hypercycle
of the five Hsing. Within that nexus the twenty basic interactions are the what
Grenander calls the bonds of the generators. The autopoietic nodes can have these
twenty basic kinds of interactions. The nodes themselves are quaternions and
970
super-breathers. Here the through and the wave are basically two views of the same
thing. But viewed in relation to discontinuous time the nodes are Magician systems
moving through their lifecycle from instant to instant. We can see that the nodes
are points of minor Yang or Yang in multiplicity. Each one is a fragment of the
source. This is because the water of life is pouring thought these locuses. They
radiate light which is reflected in the Major Yin aspect of the source. When the
acupuncture needle goes in a pattern of these nodes it redistributes the Jing energy
in the system and the system re-balances under the hyper-cycle of the autopoietic
ring. That patterning is exactly parallel the laying down of fate in the endlesstime
realm. That inscribing on the body is the reflection of the inscribing of fate in
endlesstime. The body re-balances its energy pattern which has become out of
balance due to perturbations to the autopoietic system. The balance of the body
energies reflects the perfect balance of the source which is holoidal. The source is
Yin in relation to the out of time single ultra-source of all causation while it is yang
in relation to the autopoietic system. But in its yin aspect it gathers the light of the
autopoietic nodes and brings unity to differentiation just as the source in its yang
aspect brought differentiation out of unity.
This view of the autopoietic organism is very elegant and sophisticated. It is

dependent on many assumptions that are opposite those of western science. For
instance, it assumes a celestial realm where interpenetration occurs not just
differentiated entities within a spacetime/timespace Matrix. It assumes subtle
energies. It assumes a single source for all causation and subsidiary sources that
from one aspect exist and from another aspect do not exist mediating between
oneness and the creature. It assumes the ultimate closure of the organism. It
assumes the existence of hyper-cycles and autopoietic nodes that exist in a subtle
realm of energies and their balancing. It looks at existence in a completely different
manner than western science which sees phenomena as expressions of harmony
instead of as physical and chemical processes of matter.
But this subtle science has a depth which inspires awe. It is a result of a high
civilization which like the Islamic empire was destroyed by the West because it
could not maintain balance in the face of the extremely out of balance dynamism of
Western Imperialism leveraged by external technology. But the West is starting to
become somewhat less crude in their view of the world and theories like Maturna
and Varela’s theory of autopoiesis are beginning to be formed that have resonances
with the Chinese science. We have a long way to go before we can actually derive
the acupuncture therapies again from acupuncture theory. Acupuncture is basically
971
a lost science which is being carried on by technicians who do not know how to
derive the theory anymore. What is amazing is that we have most of this lost
science in tact as a practice so that we know the theory and we know how the
practice works. But the equivalent of physicists that produced the theory in the first
place no longer exist. It is a machine that works but no one knows why or how.
Now with the combination of autopoietic theory and following the assumptions of
the Chinese themselves we are starting to get glimpses of how this ancient science’s
theory operated. And it is revealing startling things about the world such as the
existence of sources, of the proto-gestalt, of karmic causality. The fundamental
discreteness of the universe is well known from the quantum theory. But we cover
over that with the Copenhagen Interpretation that says that the discreteness only
occurs at the micro level. We have already seen how Jahn and Dunne have posited
macro-quantum effects and postulated that consciousness has a similar form to the
quantum form of the atom. The Chinese science lived comfortably in a macro-
quantum world. They did not block out the macro-quantum effects. But to them
the macro-quantum world was not just quantitative but also qualitative with the
hexagrams describing the possible quantitative combinations. We posit that all
these structures that we have posited appear because of macro-quantum effects.
These effects can approach perfect configurations that embody the structure of
emergence. So we get the rare occurrence of configurations that approach the
perfection of perpetual motion machines within the four dimensional Matrix of
spacetime/timespace. All other configurations must be judged in relation to these
rare perfect configurations of quality and quantity. In the case of the autopoeitic
system the nodes approximate quaternions and super-breathers. These two
formulations show us the trough and the energy flowing in solitonic waves through
the trough as a single formation. There is a chiasmic relation between the energy
flowing, Chi, and the patterning of the place within which it flows, Li. There is a
chiasmic relation between the nodes as discrete locuses of manifestation and the
Jing energy that jumps from node to node. The super-breathers pulsate setting up
the instantaton waves in motion. The quaternions twist to give the rotations that
make it possible for four dimensional perpetual motion machines to project images
of themselves. The hyper-cycle provides the balancing of the energy flowing
through the nodes. And as the hyper cycle interacts with the four elements it
provides the bonds through which the autopoietic nodes exchange energy and
information about themselves. These nodes can be viewed as socializing within the
autopoietic system forming a society of mind or we can see the socialization among
the autopoietic systems. The inside of these systems reflect the outside. But as the
nodes operate within discretized time they appear in the guise of Magician systems
972
which collude socially to produce the seeds that will fructify in the next moment.
All this because annihilation is the substrata on which these systems are built as
momentary illusions over the face of the Void. The whole structure is annihilated
in each moment but not before it influences the next moment. Like in Bells
theorem two things that were together once can continue to influence things over
long distances. So each momentary universe arises from the same proto-gestalt and
so they all have the ability to mutually influence each other passing on the
perfumings of causation from moment to moment. That active influence between
momentary universes appears within the context of the holographic interpenetration
of things through their sources as mediated by reflexive autopoietic systems.
The Chinese worldview was built on the Void. We have assumed as they do there
is only the Void and existents. We have assumed as they did that Being is an
illusion within an illusion only projected by the Indo-european worldview. The full
implications of this are explored in The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path
Beyond The Void. But we can say that it is necessary to deconstruct the worldview
based on Being to see the world that Chinese science addresses. With this in mind
the following dialogue is presented as an indication of the way toward the Void
from within the Western worldview.
13. An unlikely dialogue between Milrepa and Parmenides.
When we place the minimal annihilation mosaic in the context of Ontology then
we get some interesting formations alluded to in this dialogue between the Buddhist
Milrepa and the Greek presocratic Parmenides.
Milrepa is sitting meditating and having a particularly hard time concentrating
when up walks a foreigner? Its Parmenides from Greece and he has come a long way.
He has the signs of travel from a long journey on him.
Parmenides: Howdy! I’m here to disprove the existence of Emptiness!

Milrepa: Huh?
Parmenides: Is that any kind of answer from a world famous Guru sitting at the
top of a mountain?
Milrepa: I’m having a bad day. It is hard to be insightful all the time. Everyone
expects miracles all the time.
Parmenides: You ARE Milrepa, aren’t you?
Milrepa: Would just anyone be sitting out here in the cold meditating like this?
Parmenides: Just checking. I heard you guys believed in something called
EMPTINESS out here and I’ve come to set you straight.
973
Milrepa: Oh. Maybe this won’t turn out to be such a bad day after all. By all
means sit down and set me straight.
Parmenides: Thanks for the invite. It HAS been a long journey. It’s hard having
to go all over the world straitening people out. But some one has to do it.
Milrepa: Where do you come from?
Parmenides: Greece.
Milrepa: Never heard of it. Is that near Delhi?
Parmenides: Well . . . . Kinda. It’s kinda hard to explain how I got here. Could
we just jump right in to the business at hand? I’ve got a lot more stops to make.
Milrepa: Sure. Shoot.
Parmenides: Well its like this. I had this vision see. And this Goddess came to
me and clued me in on some secrets about the universe and I wrote it all down in this
poem for you and others who need to know this kind of thing. Would you like to see
the poem.
Milrepa. Looks like Greek to me. Maybe you could just tell me it?
Parmenides: Well. I guess. Uh. Don’t know quite where to start.
Milrepa: Try beginning with this vision of yours.
Parmenides: Oh good idea. Well I got into this chariot and I went up into the
heavens and met this Goddess, whose name I don’t really know at a big door. . .
Milrepa: A big door in the heavens?
Parmenides: That’s right you seen it too? Anyway this Goddess clued me in see.
She said there were only three paths. Let’s see. They were BEING, ILLUSION, and
NON-BEING. BEING is the only true path. Illusion is kinda a path but not one you
want to take. And NON-BEING is a non-path so we don’t have to worry about that.
So really she was saying there was only one path -- the path of BEING. When I told
everyone back home about it they all said Yea. Great stuff. We’ll all take that path
and see where is leads. Everyone got together and we started building a thing called
a worldview all based on BEING. We got rid of everything that even looked a little
bit illusory and we refused to have anything to do with anything that was associated
with NON-BEING. Things have been going pretty good since then. Everyone agrees
that What “IS” is and what “ISN’T” isn’t and everything in the middle isn’t worth
much. And once everyone got the idea things have been going pretty well.
Milrepa: Well that’s quite a story. If things are going so well why did you come
all the way out here?
Parmenides: Well I heard you folks were developing some strange ideas that
might conflict with our project of worldbuilding some day. So I thought I’d come out
here and set you folks straight before things got out of hand. I heard that you folks
were talking about something called “EMPTINESS” and that sounds an awful lot like
974
NON-BEING. Now it would be a bit embarrassing for me if everyone thought

EMPTINESS were real and they got off track back home. No telling where that might
lead. So why don’t we just sort this thing out right here and now so we don’t have to
worry about things in the future. I mean we’ve got a good thing going, why rock the
boat.
Milrepa: What do you get out of all this?
Parmenides: What do you mean?
Milrepa: Sure a long way to go to aVoid something that may not happen for a
couple thousand years or so.
Parmenides: You’ve got to take the long perspective. I want to build a worldview
that will last. We Greeks believe in building things to last. Look at our temples. We
even write things down to pass them on just so no one will forget what we have done.
Milrepa: Its all I can do to get from instant to instant. I have been spending all my
effort to wipe away Karmic attachments and you tell me you are trying to leave an
indelible mark on existence. I think we might have conflicting goals.
Parmenides: Well where did you get this dang fool idea about EMPTINESS any
who.
Milrepa: Well you see there was this prince called Sidhartha. He led kinda
sheltered life. His father didn’t want him to know what things were really like. He
never saw anyone poor or sick or dead in his whole life. But one day he was out in a
carriage and he went buy some of his father’s subjects who were poor, others who
were sick, and even one who was dead. That was kinda a shock to him so he gave up
his palace and everything and tried to learn what life was really all about. He went
from one extreme to the other. Next thing you know he was wandering around in the
forests talking to all the Hindu ascetics and becoming an ascetic himself trying his
hardest to figure out what existence was really all about. However, it was a real
problem. You see we have been in the same boat as you folks for a long time.
Everyone was sure that everything was permeated by something called SAT. It is a
word in Sanskrit that kinda covers everything. It sounds like something similar to
your BEING. Everything other than SAT was MAYA or illusion. So everyone was
trying their darndist to realize pure SAT that we call COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS
or Brahman. It was a head long race to become ONE with everything through
identifying with the SAT in everything. And it was a lot of work. But the Buddha
kept trying to get there along with everyone else.
Parmenides: You guys sure do a lot of work with this Asceticism stuff. Why
don’t you just act natural like us and talk about what everyone sees and thinks. Why
do you keep pushing yourself so hard?
975
Milrepa: Well I guess that was a problem. Everyone was working so hard to out
do each other with their ascetic regimes that it became very exhausting. So the
Buddha decided to take a rest. He sat down under a Bodhi tree and BOOM it hit him
like a flash. Everyone had to work so hard to achieve SAT because it didn’t really
exist. He realized in a flash that SAT was a kind of meta- illusion and we all thought
it was real because we had all agreed it was real and not because anything was actually
there. He called the illusory nature of SAT Emptiness. He started teaching everyone
about that and it was like a revelation. We call that enlightened Prince the Buddha.
He was the first one to realize perfect knowledge of the middle way. We were all
trying to achieve something that did not exist anyway, we had all just talked ourselves
into thinking it existed as a community. In fact it sounds like you folks are in a similar
boat. Maybe you should find out something about Buddhism.
Parmenides: Hey. Wait a minute. I came here to clue you guys in. If I go home
and tell everyone I just had a fantasy and it was a big mistake or something they
wouldn’t like it. Anyway how do you know I made a mistake. Maybe this
EMPTINESS of yours is an illusion. It sounds kinda ephemeral.
Milrepa: Well that could be. But I did some investigation on my own and I think
I have some good reason to think that SAT / BEING is an illusion and that Emptiness
something else.
Parmenides: What did you find out? Could you clue me in?
Milrepa: Well I live in Tibet and it is easy for me to go over the mountains into
China. No one knows that that country exists but me. But it is a country over there
just as big or bigger than India. I learned to speak the language and I asked them about
SAT. They said they didn’t have any word for SAT in their language. For them it
was as if SAT did not exist. They had nothing in their language that corresponded to
SAT. I poked around a bit and found out that they actually had lots of Languages.
And most of them didn’t have anything like SAT. But there were a few languages
that did have something like SAT but because the official language didn’t have it the
equivalents to SAT these equivalents when they did occur didn’t have much of a role
in Chinese culture. That was strange because in India it seems like everything
revolves around SAT. That made me start doubting that SAT was real. I mean if it
appears in some languages and not in others then how can it be something really basic.
Parmenides: Are you telling me that BEING is just an artifact of my language that
I have blown up and projected on the world.
Milrepa: Well that is one way of putting it.
Parmenides: Hmmm. I never thought of that.
Milrepa: Anyway that is what got me thinking the Buddha might be on to
something.
976
Parmenides: But Emptiness is such a slippery concept. I heard someone say that
emptiness was empty or something weird like that.
Milrepa: Well Emptiness has to be structured in a very specific way to counteract
the meta-illusion of Being/SAT. First of all Being/SAT covers everything. It is a bit
hard to say something else that covers everything. In fact for a long time we thought
there could only be one concept that covered everything. That is what made SAT so
unique. But that is where the Buddha’s cleverness really shown through. He
reasoned that the real problem with SAT was exactly that it was a concept. He
realized that Being’s only flaw (“Achilles heel” Parmenides interjected, Milrepa
looked at him strangely) was its conceptual nature. So he invented the fist non-
concept to cover everything. He had studied homeopathy when he was young. He
knew that if you took something that caused a disease and made it infinitesimal
through dilution and agitation then it would cause the opposite effect and would
cancel the disease that had symptoms similar to those caused by its gross form. The
tincture of Being is Emptiness. The symptoms of Being are Clinging and Craving and
lostness in illusion. One dose of Emptiness and those symptoms disappear.
Emptiness started out as a concept. It was the concept of a lack of Being but through
the process of agitation and trituration it became a non-concept that had all the
opposite qualities of Being and actually annihilates the miasma of Being. That
process of agitation is the destruction of the conceptual structure of Being. Watch out
you don’t get caught up in that. It is something that happens in these parts.
Parmenides: I don’t understand this concept of a homeopathic cure for Being.
Milrepa: It is very simple. Lets take the concept of Tropes. Do you know what
they are?
Parmenides: Aren’t those METAPHOR, METONYMY, IRONY and
SYNECDOCHE?
Milrepa: Yes. Now metonymy is the withdrawal of BEING and irony is the
negation of BEING. You put these together at the same time and you get
SYNECDOCHE. So Synecdoche is the anti-non-metaphor.
To get emptiness you must start with BEING or SAT. You withdraw SAT and
what do you have?
Parmenides: Well lets see. BEING is presencing or ALETHEIA (uncovering).
Milrepa: Oh isn’t that interesting. You see Being as an UN-COVERING a
withdrawal of covering.
Parmenides: Oh. I never thought of that. You are right.
Milrepa: Well lets begin with covering. A-letheia is a withdrawal of covering. If
we see that in reverse we realize that BEING withdrawn is the production of an
977
illusion. That is METONYMY. Non-Being is a negation of Being. That is an

IRONY.
Parmenides: Hey that’s the two paths mentioned by the goddess. She mentioned
ILLUSION and NON-BEING. She didn’t say what relation they had to each other.
Just that one path was to be aVoided and the other one was not really a path.
Milrepa: A non-path path? What was this goddesses name anyway?
Parmenides: Well she really didn’t say. I called her Peithia because I was
persuaded by her story.
Milrepa: Anyway if we take metaphor and metonymy at the same time what do
we get?
Parmenides: Oh I have no problem playing this kind of game. I would call the
combination of the two NOTHINGNESS, it is the combination of ILLUSION and
NON-BEING.
Milrepa: Quite right. I can understand that. So there is really another path that
your goddess didn’t mention. By the way have you ever met her since?
Parmenides: Well how many visions like that do you think one man can take?
Milrepa: She didn’t tell you the whole story the fist time. So I thought she might
have come around again to finish the job.
Parmenides: Do you think she was keeping something from me?
Milrepa: Let’s just say that if you meet stray goddesses by doorways in the sky
the best thing is to ask them their name just in case you have some questions later.
Parmenides: I’ll try to remember that.
Milrepa: Never mind. Lets carry on working on trying to derive Emptiness. We
now have four paths: BEING, ILLUSION, NON-BEING, and NOTHINGNESS laid
out in a square of contraries and contradictions. That kinda covers all the bases don’t
you think?
Parmenides: Well it is sorta hard to think how you are going to get anywhere else
from there? It seems like a complete ordering to me?
Milrepa: ILLUSION and NON-BEING are contradictions. BEING and
NOTHINGNESS are also contradictions. BEING AND ILLUSION are contraries.
BEING and NON-BEING are also contraries. Likewise NOTHINGNESS has the
same contraries as BEING.
Parmenides: I understand that. I taught logic to undergraduates.
Milrepa: Ok. Well what’s missing?
Parmenides: What do you mean “What’s missing?” NOTHING is missing. It is
a complete ordering.
Milrepa: That’s right nothing IS missing.
Parmenides: Say that again.
978
Milrepa: There is a hole. It is in the middle of the square of contraries and

contradictories. That hole is nothing.
Parmenides: Oh. I didn’t think of the hole. Well I guess you are right. But
actually there is nothing there.
Milrepa: But does that make it any less a part of the square?
Parmenides: OK! There is a hole I admit it. If there was no hole then there could
be no square.
Milrepa: You are doing quite well you know.
Parmenides: What do you mean.
Milrepa: I mean you are starting to learn something and I can tell you are
beginning to enjoy it. I thought you came here for a fight and look we’ve started
dancing.
Parmenides: Ok. Ok. Let’s get on with it. I still have a long way to go to get
home.
Milrepa: Ok. So we all recognized the hole. And the hole is just as real as the
square. In fact the square could not exist without the hole. In fact without the hole
we could not distinguish BEING from its contraries and contradictory.
Parmenides: Granted. But I did not come here to talk about holes.
Milrepa: Ok. Now that we have established the existence of the hole and that the
hole is as real as the square. Now let’s see if we can derive emptiness. Emptiness is
more than nothing. Lets think about it together.
Parmenides: This is your show. I just came all this way to ask some questions, it
appears. I thought I was going to be the center of attention. But all I can do is play
the part of the skeptic. Not much fun for me. At home I’m the center of attention. In
fact they’ve built a whole worldview around my vision -- you know the one you are
destroying right here on this mountain top. But I am safe as long as you don’t derive
Emptiness from the square with the hole in it. I can go home and tell them all I
discovered another path not worth going down -- You know the path of
NOTHINGNESS.
Milrepa: You could leave now and you would not have to find out if your whole
theory bites the dust.
Parmenides: Well. Actually I would really like to know if it is true or not. I mean
I started having these visions because of my seeking after the truth. If I turn back now
I will have betrayed my inner most self. I think I would rather know the truth than be
right. And that is a hard thing for me to say because basically I’ve got it made. How
many people you know have a whole worldview named after them.
Milrepa: You know I can identify with what you have just said. I had a teacher
once. When I first started out on the path. He told me to build a castle. He pointed
979
out where he wanted it. I worked very hard and made it all very nice for him. When
I showed it to him he said it was very nice but in slightly the wrong position. He asked
me to tear it down and move it somewhere else. So I tore it down and rebuilt it there.
Again the same thing happened. In fact I built that castle many times over, here there
and everywhere until I collapsed in exhaustion. My teacher just kept having me move
it everytime I built it. But all through that I really only wanted to please my teacher.
And finally I learned that he was trying to teach me something about my self. That
where ever I built it there would be something wrong. And that learning meant
continually starting over again realizing ones own faults and ignorance. I could never
know what was in the mind of my teacher and every castle had flaws.
Parmenides: Well the castle we are building back home is big enough to contain
the whole world because it is all built out of ideas. It is easy to move around because
it is just in every bodies heads. And it gives us a LOT of control over things which is
what we like. But I am just a bit worried that it might obscure our vision of how things
really are just a tad. But I am sure that problem can be corrected over time.
Milrepa: I hope so for all our sakes. But it is my experience with illusions that
they are just a little addictive and as you get hooked on them it is harder and harder to
see beyond them. There are just too many corrections to apply all the time.
Parmenides: I hope you are wrong. But we’ve got plenty of time to find out. We
are in this for the long haul. Now that we have discovered Being and founded a new
era with no Gods, Myth, or Poetry, and all that hokey stuff I think we are on to
something BIG.
Milrepa: I thought it was a Goddess that told you all this.
Parmenides: Uh . . . Well that is just a way of speaking. We are all rationalists
now. We have reasons for everything we do.
Milrepa: Sounds wonderful. Maybe we should get on with our thinking along
together. Are you with me?
Parmenides: Well. With some trepidation. Well . . . Yes. Let’s go.
Milrepa: Well then you tell me. Where is the emptiness?
Parmenides: You’re asking me? Are you kidding. You want me to tear down my
own creation.
Milrepa: Well remember my teacher? He made me tear down my own
constructions over and over.
Parmenides: OK. I guess I’ll think about it. But don’t expect much.
Milrepa: At least you are trying. That is what counts.
Parmenides: Now lets see. There can’t be anything outside the square, right?
Milrepa: I think that is right. It covers all the bases, like we said.
980
Parmenides: And it is not any of the corners of the square because each of those
are really very definite concepts, right.
Milrepa: I can follow that.
Parmenides: And we have established that the square has NOTHING inside of it.
And that the NOTHING is just as real as the square because if the hole was not there
then there would be no square.
Milrepa: Yep that is as far as we got, the fist time around.
Parmenides: I give up. We have accounted for all the elements of the square an
even the hole in the middle. I don’t see any other possibilities.
Milrepa: You sure give up easily.
Parmenides: If you were going to lose the glory of your place in history you
would have a difficult time thinking of ways to make it happen faster too, I reckon.
Milrepa: Ok. At least you tried. Even if it was a token effort. It at least make me
feel like we are in this together.
Parmenides: I said that down deep I wanted to know the truth. I didn’t say I
wanted to root out the truth that might pull me down into the forgetfulness of oblivion.
We had a King called Oedipus that wanted to know the truth too bad once and it got
him in one heck of a lot of trouble. We Greeks recognize the truth when it comes our
way but we don’t go out turning every stone upside down looking for it overly
excessively.
Milrepa: Well I guess that makes sense. Lets consider the square again. We said
that Being and Nothingness were contradictories. What happens if we force them
together so they coincide.
Parmenides: The whole point of the square is to keep them apart.
Milrepa: But can we really tell them apart? Being and Nothingness might change
places and we would never know.
Parmenides: But I know what Being is because I talked to the Goddess and she
told me. BEING IS WHAT IS.
Milrepa: That sounds a bit redundant. Is there any other way of saying that
without repeating yourself.
Parmenides: No.
Milrepa: That leads me to be suspicious.
Parmenides: Why
Milrepa: Because I am not sure you are saying anything. Sounds like a tautology.
Parmenides: It is not a tautology because in the process of becoming identical it
must move through a phase of difference.
Milrepa: What is that phase of difference?
Parmenides: Well now that you mention it I think it might be NOTHINGNESS.
981
Milrepa: That makes sense. But does that mean you really have two kinds of
Being?
Parmenides: Well I never thought about that before. But you might be right.
There is BEING which is frozen and changeless that my Goddess taught me about.
But she forgot to teach me about NOTHINGNESS. I suppose that when I say that IS
is that I am moving through NOTHINGNESS back to BEING in order to return and
reaffirm the SAME.
Milrepa: Well which kind of BEING (frozen block or mixed with difference) are
we talking about here?
Parmenides: Well it depends on your point of view. NOTHINGNESS could
appear to be the OTHER of FROZEN BEING from one point of view. Or from
another point of view NOTHINGNESS could be a PROCESS KIND OF BEING and
the FROZEN KIND OF BEING could be like a NOTHINGNESS. That is to say the
FROZEN KIND OF BEING is a kind of DEATH which the PROCESS kind of
BEING slides into at the end of its round of processing. This is kinda confusing but
I can see that there are really four things in these contraries that appear depending on
your point of view. There is STATIC FROZEN BEING and its opposite
NOTHINGNESS. There is DYNAMIC PROCESS BEING and its opposite DEATH
IN STASIS. Now if these four elements as part of the contradictories were brought
together what would happen?
Milrepa: Please tell me. You are the philosopher here.
Parmenides: Well let’s see. I guess NOTHINGNESS AND PROCESS BEING
are really two ways of looking at the same thing. STATIC FROZEN BEING and
DEATH IN STASIS are really two ways of looking at the same thing. This means we
do not just have a square but we have viewpoints on the square as well. Things are
starting to get complicated.
Milrepa: Things usually do if you fret with them long enough.
Parmenides: Well lets look at it this way. Say that STATIC FROZEN BEING
has DEATH IN STASIS inside of it. We can say that cause we know that if STATIC
BEING is separate from time which causes ILLUSION then it is like a kind of
DEATH IN STASIS. And say that PROCESS BEING has NOTHINGNESS inside
of it. We can say that because PROCESS BEING has to pass through
NOTHINGNESS as pure Otherness in order for BEING to become the SAME with
itself. So what happens when what is inside becomes identical with what is outside.
Well PROCESS BEING cancels with NOTHINGNESS and TIMELESS BEING
evaporates into DEATH IN STASIS. This is like our two viewpoints collapsing into
each other.
982
Milrepa: That all sounds very strange. But let us suppose that occurred. What
would happen next?
Parmenides: Well this is like the self-destruction of the two antitheses.
PROCESS BEING would stop because it would have become identified with pure
Otherness. It could no longer be the link for the Eternal Return of STATIC to itself.
And if Timeless STATIC BEING became identical with DEATH IN STASIS then
mortality and immortality would have intersected. In our tradition we have heroes
who are born of mortals and immortals and like Achilles they always die. So I think
that probably bodes ill for any identification of DEATH and STATIC BEING.
Sounds like another self-destruction. I think this means that if we try to bring the two
contradictories of the square into proximity we discover that there are really two
viewpoints on them which are being made to coincide and this causes the
contradictories to self destruct before they ever can actually be forced into proximity.
Milrepa: Well that is interesting. That means the self destruction did not come
from the opposite contradictory but from within each of the two contradictories. But
what were those two viewpoints that turned up.
Parmenides: Must be the difference between the viewpoints of gods and men.
The whole thing sounds a bit like my meeting with the unknown goddess. She told
me that everything was FROZEN STATIC BEING. That must have been her
viewpoint since everything to me looks like it is in the Process of Manifestation. But
to her perhaps things are STATIC. Maybe she is seeing the world multidimensionally
somehow so that what looks like it is moving to me is still to her. On my side I see
immortality as the challenge of my own death and from her side she perhaps saw Time
as Nothingness in the heart of manifestation. This would explain why Death is inside
of FROZEN BEING and Nothingness is inside Manifestation. I had to leave the earth
and go into the heavens to see the goddess. So at that doorway Heaven, Earth, Mortal,
and Immortal met. I think we might call this the Fourfold basis of the World. A great
door way whose basis is the Earth and whose lentil is the Heaven at which Mortal and
Immortal meet. I see the world as a process of manifestation in which difference is
constantly overcome by our will to power. The most different thing is the realm of
the gods. So within process is a drop of pure difference. The goddess sees a static
kind of Being within which death is embedded. The goddess sees a static kind of
Being but within that she sees our difference from her which is Death. So suddenly I
understand better my meeting with the goddess. That door was the point of mutual
mirroring of the Fourfold. It was the point where the reversibility between the
viewpoint of the gods and the viewpoint of men appears in existence. If we take the
Death within Static Being and the Nothingness within manifestation and make them
identical within each viewpoint then it is like collapsing the viewpoints together and
983
it is like annihilation of the two contraries without their ever touching. In other words
the Fourfold basis of the world collapses.
Milrepa: Frightening.
Parmenides: Yes but look how sublime our conceptual model has become. We
have posited a square of contraries and contradictories with a hole in it. Then we
asked what would happen if we made the contradictories come together. We said that
was impossible from the beginning and it has turned out to be true. It is impossible
to make them come together because if you try they self-destruct from the
identification of the kernel of the other within each and what really collapses is the
viewpoints of the mortal and immortal.
Milrepa: So where are we now:
Parmenides: Well the world has started to collapse. But only one set of
contradictories has annihilated. Let us look at the remaining set: ILLUSION and
NON-BEING. These are more difficult to think about.
Milrepa: How shall we begin?
Parmenides: Well one thing we discovered in the collapse of the other set of
contraries was that there were really two kinds of Being: STATIC FROZEN BEING
and manifestation as BEING MIXED WITH TIME. Now when we think about it
these two contraries only existed to keep apart the ones that just canceled. Now if
Process Being and Static Being can cancel like that and something still exists that
means that there must be other kinds of Being besides those two. So that means that
what we are dealing with here is some kind of progression. Now when we realized
that there was a difference between STATIC BEING and MANIFESTATION then
the viewpoints of mortals and immortals appeared. Death appeared in the midst of
the way the world was from the point of view of the Goddess and Nothingness
appeared at the Heart of Manifestation. These viewpoints collapsed instead of the
actual contraries coming together and the kernels in the centers of the contradictories
annihilated with the external aspect of the contradictories. All very complicated but
at the same time elegant.
Milrepa: Yes.
Parmenides: So now I propose we look for further kinds of Being to appear as the
square self-destructs.
Milrepa: Ok. I’m with you.
Parmenides: Well we can say that the self-destruction itself is different from the
two kinds of Being that Self-destructed. That is fairly obvious. Let’s call that kind
of being BEING CANCELED. It is a pretty strange kind of catastrophe. It is a
catastrophe that effects everything all the time. It is a continual catastrophe that is
always possible at the heart of things. We would expect it to take down ILLUSION
984
and NON-BEING with it because they were just there as a means of distinguishing
FROZEN BEING and NOTHINGNESS or DEATH and PROCESS BEING.
ILLUSION and NON-BEING might be expected to have something to do with the
other part of the fourfold. The fourfold is comprised traditionally of Heaven, Earth,
Mortals and Immortals back where I come from. We have seen the two viewpoints
of mortality and immortality collapse together in the first part of the catastrophe.
Now I suppose Heaven and Earth are going to cease to be distinguishable. And you
know in our tradition heaven and earth arise from Chaos. And Chaos is almost
identical with NON-BEING in our tradition. So I am starting to see heaven and earth
collapsing back into Chaos and I am thinking that Illusion might just evaporate. That
gives me the willies because it makes me think that perhaps we were producing that
illusion as a side effect of creating the House of Being. Certainly if NON-BEING
submerges back into CHAOS then ILLUSION will not be sustained. But as the boat
capsizes I get a vision. I get the vision of CHAOTIC ILLUSION. Maybe this is a
fourth kind of Being beyond cancellation. It is the moment at which the illusion
evaporates and heaven and earth sink back into chaos. It is just a moment. I can
barely glimpse it. But I think it might be there. After that there is only the
unthinkable. It has to be unthinkable because the goddess told us that NON-BEING
was a path we could not take. We cannot go into the CHAOS and live. And sadly we
cannot live without the illusions we have spun concerning the world. Now we are left
high and dry. Nothing but the wreckage of a worldview at our feet. And history will
forget my name.
Milrepa:
Parmenides: What can I do?
Milrepa: We didn’t identify the emptiness yet. Where does the emptiness appear
in your collapsing house of Being.
Parmenides: Well now that I understand how fragile the whole thing is I realize
that it was all empty from the beginning.
Milrepa: Yes but where was emptiness in your conceptual model.
Parmenides: Clearly it is at the center of the vortex of canceling contradictories.
Milrepa: What is it like there?
Parmenides: Very still. It is like the center of a hurricane.
Milrepa: I think you have realized something very significant.
Parmenides: Perhaps but it spells defeat.
Milrepa: How so?
Parmenides: My glory was based on the structure of the House of Being lasting
forever. Now there is nothing.
985
Milrepa: Exactly! But that nothing is not merely a missing element in your
conceptual scheme, or a hole in the center of a perfect conceptual scheme, or the
inability for anything in your scheme to move, or the inability for contradictories to
collapse together, or . . . That emptiness is something that tells you something about
YOU and YOUR project. Your project is empty. It will collapse and suffering is
inevitable if you are living.
Parmenides: Oh.
Milrepa: Emptiness has a specific place. It is at the center of the vortex of
annihilating contradictories. That place is really nowhere. You cannot find it like you
can the hole in the center where the nothing lived. But it is a palpable presence
underlying the whole scheme. It is the presence of an impossibility. It is the lurking
haunting hint of an unthinkable state of affairs.
Parmenides: This is not why I came here.
Milrepa: We often get more than we bargain for. Sometimes as in this case LESS.
But you came for victory and you found that there was no one here to fight. You are
the one who discovered how to deconstruct your own scheme. Not me. I was just
sitting here. You disproved your self. You have no one to blame but your self. And
that self does not exist to be blamed. If you had been content with your victories at
home none of this would have happened.
Parmenides: But what do I do now.
Milrepa: Build new castles else where and then tear them down again. Emptiness
must be realized always anew. It cannot be captured in any conceptual schema. We
build conceptual schema only to indicate it and since it always slips away we have to
keep building new ones continually. You see WE ARE that square you built as the
House of Being. The conceptual schemas are the frozen and static structures. The
process of building them is the process of manifestation. When they collapse this is
cancellation. And at the heart of the project is a glimpse of new creations or flaws in
our construction which we can only see if we engage on the project of building and
destroying to rebuild. But the entire project is empty. And if we become unattached
to it we live in that emptiness instead of half built or half unbuilt illusory buildings.
Parmenides: I see that. I thought I was building a worldview forever. I forgot
myself in that project. When I remembered myself the project vanished. The self I
remembered was completely empty. It was the center of the vortex of building and
unbuilding. It was defined by the vortex but if you took away the vortex then nothing
would be there.
Milrepa: You got the message. What are you going to do now?
Parmenides: I hear there is work world building in Persia. Maybe I’ll check
things out there. The world construction business seems to be booming these days.
986
Milrepa: If I was here I would say good bye.

Parmenides: Since I never arrived I will continue my travels.
Milrepa: Illusions, they come and they go.
987
Steps To The Threshold Of The Social

Part 4: Conjunction and Contradiction

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

ABSTRACT: This paper develops a non-dualistic philosophical position which has

implications for the deep structure of the dialectic and for the foundations of the
social.
1. Introduction to the problem of conjunction and contradiction
An important question that is still not resolved with respect to the relation between
magician meta-systems and special systems theories is the connection between
conjunction and contradiction. In special systems theories there are the
mathematical analogies between the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special
systems and the complex, quaternion, and octave algebras. Each of these algebras
use conjunction expressed by the “+” sign to represent how different kinds of
numbers are held together yet apart as they are transformed by operations of the
algebra. What is interesting is that these different kinds of numbers are never
actually added, but always remain separate, yet glued together, by the sign of
conjunction (+). Outside conjunction the different kinds of numbers cannot be told
apart from normal real numbers. Only as a set in conjunction do they have the
special properties described by their associated algebras. In magician meta-systems
we have posited that there are annihilation cascades with side effects and that the
minimal annihilation mosaic that composes these cascades is based on the Greimas
square in which two contradictions are kept from canceling for some period of time,
but when they eventually do cancel, then the side effects produce further particles
989
that will cancel later in the cascade. We have noted that in the Greimas square
cancellations are self-blocking, so that the annihilation mosaic does not
immediately vanish. So, we can see that conjunction in the special systems is
related in some way to sustained contradiction in the annihilation mosaic
represented by the Greimas square. In this paper we will attempt to explore this
peculiar connection between the special systems and the magician meta-system that
ties them together.
Our exploration will begin by postulating that what appears as a conjunction in the
special system is, in fact, a self-blocking contradiction in the meta-system. The
result of this postulation is to say that the magician meta-system based on
annihilation mosaics is not something added onto the special systems from the
outside, but instead something inherent within the special systems. It is an
unfolding of a potential out of what appears as the unitary relations of conjunction
at the special system level. This is an important point because it shows that each
level arises out of the possibilities of the proceeding level with an emergent
production of unique properties that were implicit in the lower level. So, for
instance, building up GST through the adding of methodological distinctions allows
us to create the illusory continuity of real numbers to describe dynamical systems.
But when we take these illusory continuities and hold them into conjunction then
the special systems levels are created. What is significant about these levels is that
they have the strange property that each level is BOTH a whole greater than the sum
of its parts and also just a sum of its parts. These special systems may be seen as
merely a collection of parts or as wholes with emergent properties. It is a matter of
the point of view of the observer whether collected parts or wholes with emergent
properties are seen. This “neat trick” that allows reductionism and holism to
intersect perfectly is brought about through the role of conjunction in the special
systems that hold the illusory continuities together-yet-apart. If the conjunctions are
broken, then the different kinds of numbers can no longer be distinguished so that
the effect vanishes. Notice that this is a property of all autopoietic systems which
appear and disintegrate instantaneously. There is no partially living systems. One is
living completely or not at all. Being born and dying are instantaneous transitions
for the autopoietic system. The same kind of snap transitions occur in the
dissipative and reflexive systems above and below that level as well. This
instantaneous constitution or destruction is based on the property of conjunction
which allows differences to be seen between different streams of illusory continuity
as long as the conjunction holds, but these crucial differences vanish completely
when the conjunction is withdrawn (annihilated). Further, an autopoietic system is
990
seen as a closed whole by those who accept the autopoietic paradigm, but is seen as
a reducible set of parts by those who do not accept the autopoietic paradigm. The
fact that conjunction allows separate but equal different continuities to be combined
so that the emergent properties only exist if the observer wishes to notice them is
very important. This same characteristic of observer dependence of the properties of
some phenonema have been seen with respect to the particle/wave nature of light in
physical experiments. It applies to other kinds of more complex phenomena as well.
The whole question revolves around whether the observer is separate from or part
of the system being observed. If the observer is separate from it then he/she sees the
reducible parts (particles) without the “extra” contribution of the whole. If the
observer is part of the system being observed then the observer sees the wholeness
of that system and its emergent properties (like the interference patterns of light
waves) and does not see its reducibility. What is amazing is that conjunction gives
us exactly this split in the role of the observer so that objective views of the system
are exactly overlapping with holistic or what might be called subjective views of the
system. The difference between these two views is undecidable because they
exactly overlap. The observer decides whether he will see the whole or the parts and
there is no real difference between seeing one or the other for these special kinds of
systems.
Light has this property because the medium of observation is inherently bound to
the characteristics of the special systems. From our point of view light moves at
186000 miles per second. But from its own point of view light does not move and
transitions from origin to destination instantaneously. we can think of ourselves as
“decelerated” from the constant of the speed of light. Thus we are warped away
from the instantaneous origin and destination of light such that the illusion of
distance and movement across that distance within spacetime is produced. We see
the order of the universe through the perception of light and its articulations that
occur based on its interaction with the properties of matter. Matter absorbs certain
wavelengths of light so that we see what bounces off the objects within the world.
The light itself has a specific spectral structure imprinted upon it by the absorption
of wavelengths by minerals within the sun. Light allows us to observe order within
the system by bouncing off of it and we receive and sense whatever has not been
absorbed along the way form the origin of the photon to its interception by our eyes
as a natural sensing apparatus. What is absorbed by the system acts as a
perturbation and what is reflected relates to that systems closure. So we use the
medium of light to see what the closed system has rejected and as we do that we
infer the properties that system has on the basis of its closure. What the system
991
accepts may perturb it and thus change its operation. Light shows us the closure of
the observed system from the relation between what is reflected and what is
absorbed we deduce the nature of the object under investigation. All objects act as
filters splitting rejected light that is reflected from accepted and absorbed light that
may perturb the system and thus change its internal dynamism. Of course, reflected
light may bounce off several surfaces on it’s route so that it sets up distorting
reverberating reflections. Those reflections may mix the properties of all the closed
systems it has encountered along the way. These reflections may produce complex
illusions. So in the phenomena of light (the primary observation medium) we see
clearly the different aspects of the special systems interacting to provide our visual
experience. The emanation of the light into the darkness is dissipative. The
absorption verses reflection of the light from bodies writes the characteristics of the
bodies into the light medium. This tells us about the closure of the bodies and this
is the autopoietic aspect of the systems encountered. The possibility of multiple
reflections of the light off many surfaces shows us the reflexive aspect of light
which is bound up with its possibility of indefinitely many reflections.
This result of conjunction is highly surprising and explains why it is difficult to

convince reductionists about the existence of autopoietic systems. We might call
this the theoretical transparency of autopoietic systems. It expresses a chiasm of
views that the observer can take of the autopoietic system which is undecidable. In
other words dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive systems are only there if you
decide to look at them as wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts and thus
see their emergent properties. Otherwise they are invisible to the theoretician who is
bent on reducing them. It is conjunction that gives us this strange epistemological
property which is completely unexpected but explains succinctly why special
systems are so hard to define and see within the auspices of a reductionist scientific
paradigm. What this is telling us is that dissipative systems may be seen as two
independent illusory continuities that are merely held together but function
independently, OR they can be seen as two illusory continuities that twist around
into each other like an Escher waterfall to produce a dissipative system. Similarly
autopoietic systems can be seen as four illusory continuities held separate and
remaining independent, or two dissipative systems held separate and remaining
independent, or on autopoietic system with its own unique emergent properties.
Finally the reflexive system may be seen as eight illusory continuities held separate
and remaining independent, or four dissipative systems held separately and
remaining independent, or two autopoietic systems held separately and remaining
independent, or one reflexive system with its own unique emergent properties.
992
Normally a system is either seen as reducible or bound up in a whole. Special

systems are an anomaly where reduction and wholeness are identical except for the
viewpoint of the observer. They are in fact anomalous perfect systems that represent
the equivalent of perpetual motion machines intruding into spacetime. They are like
the perfect numbers of Greek antiquity whose devisers add up to the number itself.
Examples of these numbers are 6 and 28, 496(?), 8128(?). Notice that in these
perfect numbers adding and dividing come into a perfect congruence. The division
into parts ADDS up to the whole. Similarly the special systems are thresholds of
algebraic complexity with a very similar property of perfection in which the whole
and the parts are perfectly congruent. The emergent properties appear to come from
nowhere. But in effect they appear when the observer looks at all the parts together
in a particular subjective way without separating him/her self from them. We can
understand these two modes of observation by relating them to dualistic and non-
dualistic approaches toward the apprehension of the natural complex under
scrutiny.
There is no doubt that this is a strange state of affairs which appears in these
anomalous “perfect special systems” and does not appear in any other kinds of
systems covered by General Systems Theory. What is interesting is that it is exactly
these special systems as thresholds of complexity that form the nucleus for the
advent of dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive systems in creation. We are not
claiming that living things exemplify only forms that revolve around these levels of
complexity. Instead we are saying that the universe of the mind and nature are
unified (have a single nomos) so that what we see as a mathematical threshold for
different kinds of minimal algebras (in logos) is in nature (physus) the possibility of
ultra efficient modes of organization which form the basis for living things as a
possible phenomenon within the spacetime universe. We take the view of
traditional Chinese science that does not split Logos from Physus as does the
Western tradition following the Greeks. Thus there is only the chiasm of mindbody
or mindnature with a single nomos which exemplifies certain very specific
mathematical properties which we abstract in mathematics, but actually exist
equally in nature. These mathematical thresholds of complexity form nexes in
spacetime that can facilitate certain organizations of things. We normally miss
observing these special organizations because the observing medium itself (light)
has these peculiar properties and special organization and it only occurs rarely in
other phenomena. As it happens there are three ultra-efficient nexes represented by
the special systems. We call phenomena organized around the simplest ultra-
efficient nexus dissipative systems. We call phenomena organized around the next
993
more complicated ultra-efficient nexus autopoietic systems. And we call

phenomena organized around the most complex ultra-efficient nexus the reflexive
system. Each one has inherent properties that flow from their algebraic expression
that make possible the intrusion of the perpetual motion that is possible in four
dimensional rotations to appear or intrude nto three dimensional spacetime which
effect the things organized around that nexus conferring special properties on those
organized things that violate normal thermodynamic laws. The fact that a
phenomena is organized around one of the nexes does not mean that it is simple or
that is all there is to the phenomena. Here we merely see eventities taking advantage
of this mathematical possibility of ultra-efficiency built into mindnature. They use
that ultra-efficiency to give them a boost in the energy usage for self-organization.
Here we are interested in the minimal thresholds themselves and the simplest
possible organizations that can take place around them. We do not expect to be able
to explain all aspects of systems that are based on these thresholds but only there
minimal or essential aspects motivated by an understanding of the mathematical
analogies and how they map into the expression in special systems.
Since the mathematically expressed complexity threshold that holds the promise of
ultra-efficiency is an inherent part of the mindnature chiasm we can see that the
reversibility of the views of the observer betweem dual and non-dual modes is an
expression of that chiasm. In other words if the observer thinks he/she can separate
him/her self from “nature” then the whole fragments and all that can be seen are
reduced parts. But, if the observer things he/she is part of the continuum with
“nature,” then the whole remains of-a-peice AND the observer sees the emergent
properties of the whole rather than the parts. What the observer sees is a result of
his/her alienation from the mindnature chiasm. If the observer separates his/her self
from the mindnature chiasm then the nexes of ultra-efficiency look like
mathematical systems divorced from nature. But, if the observer does not separate
his/her self from the mindnature chiasm then the thresholds of complexity remain
embedded in spacetime itself and become features that undistinguished natural-
mental processes can take advantage of to increase efficiency. Non-separation of
the observer from the mindnature chiasm leaves the lifeworld in tact. Separation
causes alienation of the subject from the object and leads to either materialism or
idealism. If the lifeworld is not separated then subject does not separate from object
and the observer is implicated in what ever system he/she observes. In this state of
non-separation emergent characteristics of phenomena can be observed and
synthesis dominates analytic fragmentation. The transcendental subject projects a
prior synthesis on which its analysis of phenomena is based. Objects become
994
noumena that can only be partially known. However if the subject and object are
not allowed to split then the fragmentation of phenomena is projected and on the
basis of that syntheses are seen. We saw in the last paper in this series that part of
this fundamental prior fragmentation is the projection of discontinuous time, we
might also mention discontinuous space and quantization of phenomena in discrete
spacetime. The non-separated observer lives in a macro-quantum mechanical
universe in which discretization is prior to the arising of syntheses. Whereas the
separated observer that drives a wedge between subject and object must project
synthesis in the form of illusory continuities in order to be able to analyze
phenomena. In our culture the projection of a priori synthesis and a posteriori
analysis is the dominate mode of transcendence. It is opposite the projection of a
priori disconnection and the understanding of the deep synergy of things based on
their arising out of the prior fragmentation. We noted in the last paper that the
magician meta-systems functioned primarily in relation to discrete and
disconnected time. Similarly we could talk about discrete and disconnected space
and the macro-quantalization of phenomena of the non-separated observer.
Projecting separation we realize synthesis and synergy as an end result and are able
to see the Fullerian Fourths in creation. From the view of the transcendental subject
of the noumenal transcendental object this synergy is covered over and completely
hidden. That is why Peirce could prove there were only Firsts, Seconds and Thirds
as logical categories. Categories are seen only as categories in the mind not in the
mindnature chiasm. In the mindnature chiasm there are thresholds of synergy like
the special systems that form nexes of ultra-efficiency for organization of systems.
These are realized when we take the illusory continuities projected by the observer
through the process of ideation and realize that they are fragmented. The
fragmentation appears in the conjunction of discrete streams of illusory continuity.
Out of them arise the algebras that specify these nexes of ultra-efficiency where the
holes in the intertransformability are patched by appealing to the relation between
illusory streams. So the subject appropriates the algebras at first to shore up the
streams of illusory continuity in the face of intertransformabilty. But this appeal to
different kinds of illusory continuity that only appear in mutual conjunction brings
fragmentation into the world of the subject. The subject itself becomes fragmented
into conjunctive streams of continuity. Once fragmentation enters it is projected
onto the noumenal object. Where the subject is fragmented the object is unified into
dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive anomalous systems. These anomalous or
special systems provide a limiting case for scientific exploration that splits subject
from object. These special systems are anomalous objects which are sustained
paradoxes. Alienated science only sees them as impossibilities. Order from
995
nowhere is an impossibility. It implies that there are unseen causes that order
material phenomena. Life is an impossibility because reduction cannot see how
material things can combine to produce elan vital. The social is impossible because
of the paradox of intersubjectivity and the problem of solipsism. Yet when we look
out at our world we see living things and social living things and we see dissipative
systems that have order appearing from singularities within them. To the scientist
who is alienated these are epiphenomena that are really explained by lower level
emergent levels such as atoms and chemistry of molecules. But to one who is not
alienated from the mindnature chiasms and lives in the lifeworld rather than the
reduced universe of science the emergent properties of these special systems are
obvious.
So we have seen that conjunction plays a very special role in the special systems
allowing them to come into existence and giving them some of their very special
properties. Conjunction itself is strange in that it holds things which could not be
recognized as different apart and in so doing allows their difference in kindness to
appear. It holds these different kinds of illusory continuity apart-yet-together. They
cannot ever be brought completely together as the conjunction does not actually
allow the addition to take place and the can not exist completely apart either as the
differences that appear in conjunction disappear when the number streams are
disconnected. So “apart-yet-together” is a middle term between complete
disconnection and complete connection. We saw above that the subjectivity
fragments when it attempts to strengthen intertransformabilty but this causes the
noumenal objects to take on a special unity such as that of the autopoietic system.
When the unity of the noumenal object is conjoined to the fragmentation of the
subject then we have the mindnature chiasm. The subject becomes part of the
system being observed and the emergent properties appear. In the conjunction of a
fragmented subject and unified object emergence appears because when these two
extremes with reversed roles are combined the surplus siphoned off by the subject is
returned to the object. Thus the whole greater than the sum of the parts appears
again. The subject is that supplement which had been taken out of play by
alienation and reductionism. When the supplement is returned then the special
properties of the whole are seen again. But, what is lost is the objectivity in which
the subject stands as inquisitor over the tortured object.
So we must ask where the conjunction gets its own special properties. If we assume
projecting discontinuous spacetime instead of continuous time and space, then we
can see the conjunction as the connection between these discontinuous segments
996
and the quantized phenomena that appear within the discrete universe. But this
brings up the points explored in the last essay in this series that dealt with how such
systems cope with discontinuous time and space. We noted that discontinuous space
is dealt with by instantatons or four dimensional solitons. Discontinuous time is
dealt with by the embodied mechanism of karmic causation that Goertzel has
modeled with the magicians meta-system. Quantization of phenomena implies
macro-quantum mechanics which rejects the Copenhagen interpretation and says
that the whole universe is quantal from micro to macro. It is only our projection of
illusory continuities at the macro level which is a function of how we project our
worldview that do not allow us to see this. We siphon off all intimations of it into a
catch all rejected (nonscientific) category called the paranormal. Through
conjunction we produce constellations within discontinuous spacetime/timespace
and between macro-quantal phenomena. Magician systems provide one important
underpinning of these conjunctions as they relate to discrete time. Spatial
conjunctions we call patterns and boundaries that cannot have conjunctions that
bridge across them we call forms. We have already noticed the inherent
complementary nature between pattern and form. Pattern and form are ways of
looking at relations and anti-relations. Juxtapositions are emphasized in defining
forms and relations de-emphasized. Relations are emphasized in defining patterns
and juxtapositions de-emphasized. But both pattern and form ignore the necessity of
temporal juxtapositions and relations. This is supplied at the trace level by
magicians that define how conjunction between discrete moments is possible
despite radical separation. At the trace level differing and deferring appear as
DifferAnce. It allows us an implicit temporalizing of difference which maintains
continuity despite radical discontinuity as a side effect.
In order to understand conjunction which makes the SAME in spite of a priori

fragmentation in spacetime and among phenomena we must delve into the self-
blocking of contradictions in the Greimas square. Conjunction holds together-yet-
apart in spite of fragmentation. Self-blocking contradiction also holds apart-yet-
together two pairs of elements that would annihilate each other otherwise. Self-
blocking annihilations of contradictions lead as we have seen to annihilation
cascades that form the basis of magician systems. Magician systems in turn are
meta-algebras which use the emergent properties of the special systems as operators
and thus tie the special systems together in their wholenesses. The special systems
in turn hold together the disparate illusory continuities that are their parts. When
these parts are not seen as part of wholes then they fragment into variables
randomly tracked by General Systems Theory without any realization of their inner
997
connection. As we move from meta-system to special system to form within a

general system we are tracking the unfolding of inner possibilities for special
systems are an inner possibility of general systems and magician meta-systems are
an inner possibility of special systems. This is expressed best in the unfolding of
self-blocking contradictions from out of conjunctions. How can conjunctions hold
apart-yet-together. This shows that there is some inner structural tension, some kind
of tense-gridity as Fuller would say, that forces things apart yet keeps them
together. The plus sign “+” is a black box and does not express any of this necessary
inner structuring that allows the tense-gridity effect to occur. What we posit is that
this tense-gridity effect is not just something that occurs in space between numbers
but also in time and so is intimately related to the annihilation cascades of self-
blocking contradictions which allow the time for conjunction to occur in. When we
unfold the black box of the plus sign “+” of conjunction we get a Greimas square
that temporalizes the cancellation process and allows things to hold together-yet-
apart despite the fact that outside that relationship they would cancel their
distinctive properties and vanish completely. This shows us that conjunction is
inherently fragile and brittle in relation to its temporality. Conjunction must be
maintained as a collusion magician systems enacting their lifecycle in the face of
the continual annihilation in discontinuous spacetime/timespace.
Figure 158:
Traditional Paradigm:
intentional morphe hyle
Subjectivity --------------------------------> Object (noumena)
unity a priori synthesis analyzable object
Autopoietic Paradigm:
Subjectivity Object becomes a

Fragments as strange kind of
kinds of illusory noumenal unity as
continuity appear one of the special
systems
Nowhere Dissipative System
Implicated Observer Autopoietic System
Mit-Sein (Dasein lost in They) Reflexive System

desiring machines Socius
998
Why is contradiction worth exploring more deeply? It is because since classical

Greek times all motion was seen through Zeno’s paradoxes to be contradictory and
thus impossible in a world where contradictions are not allowed. The special
systems provide the lubrication by the intrusion of four dimensional rotations into
three dimensional space which allows motion to occur which overcomes the stasis
of contradictions grid lock. Between the dynamic of systems and the static duality
of meta-systems exists the possibility of overcoming the contradictions that arise
between systems within the meta-systems which make motion as a side-effect
possible. The paradox of the unmoving mover (Aristotle) or the self-moving (Plato)
is resolved by the existence of the anomalous special systems that make motion an
actuality that is realizable through a breach in dimensionality. As we will see if we
assume that inconsistencies can exist via a para-consistent logic then motion is no
longer impossible as Parmenides would have it. Motion remains subject to
contradiction intrinsically. But this explains why Magician meta-systems must
exist. Magician systems work out the contradictions that appear in the motion of
things in the universe. Motion must also link together discontinuous moments in the
universe. Magician systems are the concrete theoretical mechanism that makes this
possible for the special systems. The fact that self-blocking annihilation of
contradiction underlies conjunction means that the most durable systemic relations
of the special systems are founded on the most fleeting of relations that only exist as
long as it takes for them to manifest and then self-cancel.
2. Deriving the Greimas square from logic.
Greimas’ square is founded on the square of contrary opposites and contradictions

in logic. In logic the upper pair (AE) of opposites are abstractions and the lower pair
(IO) are particulars. There is an implication down from the opposition at the
quantification level to the opposition of particulars. Greimas took this square and
generalized it. It is clear that the difference between the upper and lower
oppositions is the difference between Qantification Universal verses Existential
quantification. This is a difference that makes a difference just like the differences
that generate opposition. In the generalization two differences that make a
difference when crossed produce the extreme opposite or contradictory of anything.
In this way of looking at the logical square the implication (which Onar Aam has
shown itself has the same structure as the Greimas square in personal
correspondence) is merely a different kind of opposition from the first opposition.
We have labeled these two kinds of opposition ANTI and NON. So the extreme
opposite generated by crossing oppositions is the ANTI-NON element. The ANTI
999
and NON become contradictions and the ORIGINAL element and its ANTI-NON
become contradictions. Contradictions cancel (in logos) or annihilate (in physus)
each other if they are allowed to join. Contradictions can only remain in existence if
they are blocked from canceling or annihilating. Cancellation is what occurs in the
mind and Annihilation is what occurs in Nature. These are two sides of the same
phenomena. In this case one contradiction blocks another contradiction from
canceling. We call this the minimal annihilation mosaic. Since blocking is not
necessarily permanent then it takes time for release and annihilation to occur in any
annihilation mosaic. When annihilations have side effects they can produce
annihilation cascades that can become stable if they form loops. We posit that
looping annihilation cascades with side effects are the fundamental basis upon
which magician meta-systems are built up within discontinuous time.
Heraclitus was the first one in the Western tradition to point out the unity of
opposites or contraries. He posited that motion exists contra Parmenides. He called
the basic flux of the universe FIRE. The annihilation mosaics that underlie
magicians are a good analogy for FIRE. FIRE destroys and annihilation does so
utterly. Heraclitus also posited that contradictions can exist side by side in reality.
Looking at all he said (or what we know of it) we could see him as positing the
existence of annihilation mosaics as the fundamental reality. Annihilation mosaics
take the unity of opposites, the FIRE of annihilation, and the existence of
contradictions and places them all within a single logically derived framework that
was first used by Greimas to study the standing contradictions that are worked out
in narratives and society. What we have to notice here is that a thing can be contrary
different things in different ways. These different contraries can be crossed to
produce and extreme opposite of a thing which is contrary in every respect. Next we
see that things that are contrary to a thing in different ways might contradict each
other. In such a case there come into existence orthogonal contradictions that form a
minimal system. This minimal system has two relations of contrariness, two of
contradictoriness, and two juxtapositions that can turn into annihilations. As a
minimal system this formation of self-blocking contradictories has stability
momentarily. A minimal system has 720 degrees of angular momentum just like a
spinnor and a spinnor is the minimal configuration that has a stable position in
spacetime. Thus the minimal annihilation mosaic represents a point in spacetime. In
spacetime you have to be moving like a spinnor in order to stand still. But we can
see how the minimal annihilation mosaic becomes a point in spacetime and thus
forms part of the substrate of spacetime producing virtual particles out of nothing
which return to nothing unless conserved. But with annihilation cascades non-
1000
conserved particles can form lasting chains of annihilation patterns through side
effects. These meta-stablities of looped annihilation cascades where particles form
hyper-cycles that appear last even though they do not actually persist is the basic
necessity for the manifestation of any of the special systems. Looped annihilation
cascades can be seen to twist as positive and negatives are statistically inverted to
form the basic patterns of the special systems (dissipative, autopoietic, and
reflexive) over time within their cascade.
In the annihilation mosaic the two pairs of contradictories that annihilate interfere
with each other and prevent each other from destroying their contradictories. The
annihilation mosaic must untwist in order to allow contradictory pairs to ‘have at’
each other and destroy themselves. By untwisting it is no longer a full spinnor and
loses its stability within spacetime. The untwisting is a catastrophe that engulfs the
stability of the annihilation mosaic. An annihilation cascade is a series of these
untwisting catastrophes in discontinuous time. The real question is how these
stabilities are produced originally and what keeps them from untwisting so that
annihilation becomes possible for them. We can think of the annihilation mosaic as
a knot in spacetime that when it unknots disappears. The untwisting is like untying
the knot. The real question is how the knot gets tied in spacetime in the first place to
produce momentary temporal stability in the face of continual annihilation.
It is clear that opposites do not appear alone in things but that each thing has a
myriad of facets through which it can be contrary other things. When facets relate to
things that are contradictory and when the extreme opposite of the original thing is
produced then the twist is produced which is stable in spacetime but which is
ultimately unstable internally. The twist is introduced when the aspects of a thing
call up contraries that are contradictories. Contraries of a thing that are
contradictories act like the stick in the mouth of the alligator that keeps it from
slamming shut with devastating effect. Since every thing has myriad aspects and by
those aspects it can call up myriads of contraries we can say that contraries that are
contradictory are probably a fairly likely phenomena. Somehow the two dual
contradictories repel one another by attempting to use the same space to annihilate
each other. This repelling need only occur for a moment for the annihilation mosaic
to exist. Think of it like this. A new First comes into existence. It must be multi-
faceted to be genuinely new because it must integrate multiple significant
difference from what already exists and thus achieve independence from other
Firsts that already exist. But once it appears then these facets lock into opposition
with other Firsts some of which are contradictory to each other. The Greimas square
1001
is only the simplest possible formation of this crossing of contraries. Contraries are
marked differences that generate oppositions and contradictions are doubly marked
differences that make a difference (cf. Bateson) that separate in resolvable or
irreconcillalbe extreme and conflicting opponents (cf. Sartre Critique Of Dialectical
Reason). Contradiction is an embodiment of and generator of nihilistic extreme
opposite that constitute “wicked” (cf Simon) non-optimizable problems as opposed
to the mermutated differences of simple opposition. An example from traditional
Chinese medicine is the relationship of major and minor yin and yang to the sick
extremes of closed Yin and Yang Splendor. A First may be contrary to many other
Firsts and so there is not just one but many conflicting contradictories that are
contrary to it. All these conflicting contradictories stand between the First and its
extreme opposite or contradictory. Each is held apart by their rushing together at
once to annihilate. The mythological archetype of this is Cadamus throwing the
stones in the midst of the men of earth who rush together and destroy each other
except for the five survivors who with cadamus found Thebes (This is the story of
an autopoietic ring like the five Hsing emerging out of chaos of war.) It is existing
micro-emergents that rush to fill all these roles. They can do that because of the
utter differences between the Firsts. The identification of contraries and
contradictories is an automatic recognition between them of each others differences.
Natural and Nihilistic or extreme opposites arise spontaneously in this process that
upon annihilation becomes the FIRE by which the flux of creation moves. Since
Firsts are naturally produced out of the VOID this process never ceases. Magicians,
Special Systems and even General Systems all arise out of the temporalization and
delay in this process of annihilation. Each are successive levels of reification of the
process.
But we still have not explained how the twists got into the annihilation mosaics. To
do this we have to appeal to a dialectical theory of change. In this theory we see that
Synthesis that create synergies are constantly occurring and that synergies are
dynamic not static. Syntheses take two contradictions at some point in time and
resolve them into a higher unity by making some small changes that defuse the
contradiction that is being generated at that moment. These small changes can be
seen as twists in the relations between elements in the contradictory tableau (i.e. the
whole diacritical set of contradictories at some synchronic discrete moment). But
since there are many Firsts that abound together at any one moment then creating
one synthesis that resolves some contradiction will produce other twists that reveal
other contradictions. Thus we can see that the twists at any one moment are
contingent and that when changed to other twists produce some synergies but as a
1002
side effect produce other contradictions that will have to be resolved at the next
moment. Plato’s dialectic in dialogue basically presented this kind of dialectic
where positions of conversants produced contradictions in the dialogue so that the
positions were changed slightly as a new starting point. When a definition that did
not produce contradictions was found then this definition was considered to be a
FORM that is something that lasts in the stream of dialogue. The tweaking of
arguments and definitions is here analogous to the twisting of the relation between
contradictories in the stream that is constantly producing contraries and
contradictions and out of contradictions syntheses of synergies that as side effects
produce other contradictions.
We have already noted previously that Firsts are micro-emergences. If we hold to

that vision we can say that discontinuous time does not have to be in lock step like
those produced by CPU cycles but instead are probably are statistical so that the
minimal time unit is the production of destruction of a First. It takes so long for a
First to emerge and become what it is inherently and that is the minimal
discontinuous time. That time is the time it takes for that first to transition all the
kinds of Being as it appears out of the void and enters our world as an utterly novel
thing. Firsts are produced within the discontinuous MATRIX of timespace/
spacetime stochastically. When they arise they have many aspects some of which
are anomalous and some of which relate to things that already exist by their
participation in sortals. When they arise Firsts recognize their contrariness to each
other and occasionally realize that they are contradictories. The whole moves
toward synthesis and introduces twists to resolve contradictions which have as side
effects other twists. A First may have many contraries but only when these produce
and extreme opposite is a nihilistic situation produced. Firsts continually produce
nihilistic opposites out of the primal soup of their relations and juxtapositions. In
effect other Firsts arise from the field or soup to fill the place of the contrary as an
existential instantiation. In this way specific annihilation mosaics are created. When
they untwist due to synergistic movement overall then they annihilate the contraries
involved. These annihilations mosaics may be added together to produce cascades
that can be twisting or looping. These form the basic structure underlying magician
meta-systems which appear as continuities at the trace level. Traces build into signs
that in turn build into forms that appear to have continuity over time. The sortals
produce the Universal quantifications which in turn are instantiated by existential
quantification by firsts that fill in the variable of opposition. Grenander’s bonds on
generators could be seen to fulfill this role. Bonds can be statistically linked and the
bond values might be the sortal types that produce contrariness and contradiction. In
1003
this way we can see how the field works to instantiate the Firsts in the relations or
juxtapositions within the field and these annihilate to produce the meta-stable
patterns across discrete time fragmented by continual annihilation.
3. Unfolding the Greimas square to find the special systems.
The logical square describes the constraints that universals impose upon particulars
in the process of quantification. Greimas abstracts from this to produce a square that
defines how any two characterizations of something interfere with each other. If one
characterizes something as “A” then it is possible logically to come up with an
opposite characterization “anti-A” and any other characterization “non-A”. The
contradiction appears when one combines these two opposite characterizations to
produce the “anti-non-A” which is the name of the Other. The Other is always the
opposite of the self but muddled by other characterizations that lend the other the
mantle of the strange, weird, or uncanny.
If we go back to our characterization of consciousness having two centers 1 and -1.

The -1 of the singularity is the anti-center of consciousness. The number one is the
point of symmetry that hides the unconscious. The number negative one is the
singularity at which the dissipative order from nowhere appears that we know as
language. Now, what if we want to produce another characterization of the ellipsoid
of consciousness. We might do that by taking the square root of the two centers. It is
always possible to take a square root because it is an iterative operation of
something on itself. Taking the square root of one produces either 1 or -1. This
operation is similar to the differing and deferring undecidability of difference where
we cannot decide whether we are at one or the other origin points of consciousness.
This undecidability becomes an indefiniteness if instead we take the square root of
negative one. The answer to that is either i or -i. These imaginary points are not only
undecidable but also impossible to place anywhere in real space. They are indefinite
because we cannot place them anywhere definitely in spacetime in relation to
consciousness without producing another dimension relative to the x, y, z of normal
space. It is precisely by creating such a fourth dimension that we create spacetime
as a four dimensional plenum instead of the three dimensions of normal space.
We can say that each point of consciousness is a stationary point in spacetime. As

such it must have the structure of a spinnor. This spinnor which produces a spin of
4pi passes through 1, -1, i, -i points and thus posits that there are imaginary points i
and -i that appear when consciousness is related to everything else in spacetime.
1004
Thus the boundary of consciousness is not a simple real ellipse but is instead
something more like the Mandelbrot set that shows the fractal and chaotic interface
between the real and the imaginary numbers. We have already postulated that there
are meta-Mandelbrot sets associated with the quaternion and octonion sets (Onar
Aam has produced pictures of the fractal octonion sets). The boundary of
consciousness with everything else in spacetime would have the nature of these
three possible Mandelbrot sets. By this way of looking at the simplistic geometrical
model of consciousness the imaginary and hyper-imaginary numbers become
precisely the relation of the ellipsoid of consciousness to everything else within
spacetime via the chaotic fractal interface generated using i and its cognates.
So interpreting Gremias’ square in these terms: A=1 giving us the symmetrical

center of the unconscious; anti-A= square root of 1 (1 or -1) giving us the
undecidable; non-A= -1 giving us the singularity of language from which pours the
order from nowhere; and non-anti-A=square root of negative one (i or -i) giving us
the indefinite.
Figure 159:
symmetry undecidable
A=1 --------- anti-A = square root 1 = 1 or -1
| |
| |
| |
| |
non-A=-1 ---- anti-non-A = square root -1 = i or -i
singularity indefinite = no definite place
So we see that we produce the imaginary numbers by a simple unary operation of

something on itself. That unary operation gives us very different results if we apply
to it to the two centers of the ellipse of consciousness. If we apply it to the
symmetry point of the unconscious then we get an undecidability between it and the
singularity. If we apply it to the singularity we produce the fourth dimension or the
nowhere from which the singularity gets the ordering that it applies to
consciousness. This fourth dimension contains the displaced undecidability
between the poles i and -i projected on this indefinite realm that is literally nowhere.
Notice that the 1 and -1 will annihilate each other (1 + -1 = 0). Similarly i + -i = -1
???? [The answer here should be 0. At the end of this section Onar Aam proposes a
solution to this problem. In order to allow him to explain this contradiction that
1005
arises in my narrative himself I will leave the original contradiction in place. At this
point the mathematics and my interpretation of it were at odds. I beleive Onar has
found a good solution that obviates the contradiction in my narrative]. The ellipsoid
of consciousness is defined in such a way as to hide the inner possibility of the
annihilation of consciousness in which the singularity of language collapses into the
symmetry point of the unconscious. If the undecidable points from the square root
operation are added then annihilation is the result. If the these same undecidable
points are added in the imaginary realm then they collapse into the -1 singularity.
Annihilation is the hidden possibility of the complex numbers and their algebra as it
models the dissipative system.
What is of interest here is the fact that this model is easily extended to give us the
other imaginary values our hyper algebras demand. First we note that we have
ordered the anti- and non- prefixes. What if either order that is possible were
permitted. In that case we would get the anti-non-A and the non-anti-A and these
correspond to the j and k imaginary numbers exactly. We can interpret j and k as
partially indeterminate and undecidable to different degrees. They represent the
chiasm of indeterminateness and undecidability. One emphasizes the phase of
indeterminateness over decidability and the other vice versa. The number i or -i
represents the ideal balance point of these two characterizations while j and k
represent the chiasmic dominance of one characterization over the other. In this way
the quaternion values of i, j, and k unfold from the Greimas square in a fairly natural
way.
Notice that it is the commutative property that is lost which produces the the j and k
out of the i. At the quaternion level where the autopoietic system manifests it is
precisely the loss of arbitrariness in the ordering of the anti- and non-
characterizations that allows the chiasmic internal structure of the square of
contradictions to unfold.
We should go on to notice that we can extend this model further by allowing the
undecidability at the level of the first square to open out forming two hinged
squares both arising from the 1 and -1 of the ellipsoid of consciousness. When the
reversibility of each of these now decidable facets is considered then we
automatically get not just j and k but also J and K hyper imaginaries because I has
decidability differentiated from i and 1 from -1. At this final level of unfolding the
structure posits a new value E that completes the octonion. That new value is a
characterization beyond undecidability and indefiniteness which we will call
1006
exclusivity. Breaking apart the undecidable allows us to associate their derivatives

as we wish and so we loose the associative property which is exactly what
distinguishes the octonion grammar. We have generated the fundamental basis of
the reflexive special system when we did that. We also generated a new
characteristic called exclusivity. It means that we cannot have one side unfolding
from split undecidability at the same time as the other or undecidability becomes
decidable. All the indefiniteness and undecidability is combined and projected as a
meta-otherness.
Figure 160:
j
non-anti-A
indefinitely undecidable: temporal differAnce
/ \
A / \
Decidable / non-A
definite ---------/------ undecidable
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
indefinite ---/----------- exclusive
anti-A / complementarity
\ / both non-anti-A and anti-non-A
\/ i
|
undecidably indefinite: spatial differAnce
anti-non-A
k
What this really means it that the association i(jk) /= (ij)k and I(JK) /= (IJ)K. [Here
again is a mistake in my understanding of how the octonion worked at the time
when I first wrote this working paper. Onar Aam subsequently corrects this mistake
and in order to allow him to say the correction in his own words I will leave the
mistake in place.] When you perform this non-association you generate the
exclusivity of the unfolded undecidables that were non-commutative at the next
level down.
1007
Figure 161:
Relative Future
non-anti-A
indefinitely undecidable
/ \
SPACE / \
Decidable / NOWHERE
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
TIME \ / TEMPORAL NOWHERE
\/ "the absolute past"
|
undecidably indefinite
anti-non-A
Relative Past
This diagram shows what happens when we apply this scheme to spacetime. It may
be further unfolded by allowing decidability of the undecidable which causes
exclusivity to appear. The IJK verses ijk structures give us the phase structure of
spacetime. These together project the exclusivity E which we can interpret as
endless time or the frozen spacetime block.
1008
A similar thing occurs when we interpret the unfolded structure in relation to truth
values.
Figure 162:
*j* proto-imaginary
non-anti-A
indefinitely undecidable
A / \
TRUE / \ non-A
Decidable / BOTH TRUE AND FALSE
| / / para-consistent
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
FALSE\ / NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE
\/ non-anti-A or vice versa
| para-complete
undecidably indefinite
anti-non-A
*i* proto-imaginary
The proto-imaginaries arise as Spencer-Brown suggests from the oscillation of the

truth values within the laws of form. Varela and Kaufmann note that these
oscillations form standing waves. Here we see that the arising of proto-imaginaries
are a straight-forward unfolding of the square of contradiction. They arise because
of the chiasmic nature of the undecidability produced by the contradiction. When
two different characterizations of something are advanced -- one by finding the
opposite of the thing and the other by referring to everything else -- then a
contradiction may arise which asks about Otherness per se by combining the
opposite and everything else. We can unfold out of this Otherness two chiasmic
views which emphasize either indefiniteness or undecidability. These two views
generate the proto-imaginary opposite truth values which are intermediate un-
truths. These un-truths work as Spencer-Brown shows to allow certain problems to
be solved, just like the imaginary numbers do, that could not be solved otherwise.
1009
The important point for us in this argument is that all Greimas squares have an
inner structure that unfolds the hyper-imaginaries step by step -- by sacrificing the
same properties that disappear from the hyper algebras one by one. The dissipative
system displays the annihilation operator --- the inner possibility of the square of
contradictions is annihilation of logical contradictories. The commutative property
gives us a basic undecidability. The losing of that property unfolds a chiasm in
which different orderings of the undecidable give possibly different results. The
undecidability and the arising of the chiasm produces three imaginary values. If we
lose the association between these values then we move from the autopoietic
quaternion level to the reflexive octonion level where a further unfolding occurs. At
that level undecidables are postulated to be decidable in different worlds. Thus, the
structures of the chiasm unfolds into two separate dual chiasms giving IJK as
opposed to ijk as imaginary values. The difference between ijk and IJK is one
between unity and separation. IJK does not have quaternionic intertransformability
without the intervention of E. From these two decisive structures further unfolds
the antimony of the original thesis named the imaginary value E that is opposite of 1
(A). This antimony is the source of a dual structure to that posited by the original
thesis. It is in fact the deep opposite of the original thesis rather than its superficial
opposite that the anti-appears to be. It is an opposite that appears past chiasm and
decidability at the limit of knowledge. It is the enantiomorphic image in the mirror
of existence of the thesis. Further, the E lends unity to the disparate elements IJK
whereas the E participates in several quaternioinic mediations between the ijk and
IJK elements. and this expands the closed unity of the quaternion into octonion
reflections.
This unfolding of the square of contradictions that first produce chiasm then
attempts to produce decision of undecidable only to posit exclusivity has the effect
of delaying cancellation of the square of contradiction itself. First the square is
caught in an undecidability as to which blocking contradiction to resolve first in
order to unravel its contradictions. Then the chiasms appear which allows
differential contributions of the elements of the square of contradiction to be taken
into consideration. Finally the undecidability is decided by projecting possible
worlds in which each decision is taken and the chiasms are repeated. But this finally
yields an inexorable exclusivity that actually breaks the universe into two possible
universes that need to be resolved into a single result. This complex unfolding
prevents immediate cancellation of the square of contradictions so it allows a
temporal lag to occur which is the moment of existence of the annihilation mosaic.
If you add to this the possibility of looped annihilation mosaics then one gets a
1010
theory that explains how things can continue to exist in the face of the FIRE of
annihilation.
The square of contradictions has in fact a deep substructure that was not
appreciated by Greimas when he applied it to narratives. That deep substructure
refers to the levels of Being. A thesis such as “A” is posited as present to hand. That
positing calls forth the process of defining characterization by identifying the anti-
thesis and considering everything excluded from the gestalt of the dialectic. The
dialectic itself is a process within which the thesis and anti-thesis are involved that
part of the basic flux of existence. Normal dialectics assumes that it is the conflict
of the thesis and the anti-thesis that causes them to persist until they are supplanted
by the synthesis before a new bifurcation of thesis and anti-thesis occurs. But
instead we see that there is a subtle play between the relation of thesis and anti-
thesis and their combined relation to everything else as they define a system. This
subtle play causes us to define the boundary between the dialectic and everything
else. From that definition of a boundary there arises the possibility of defining the
radically other which is a combination of the anti-thesis and what is excluded from
the dialectic. We notice that this definition of the radically Other involves a basic
undecidability. Does the anti-thesis predominate or what is excluded? A chiasm
arises between these two phases of the interval between the anti-thesis and the non-
dialectical. We can look at it either way making the anti-thesis more important or
the exclusion boundary more important. The chiasm does not resolve the
undecidability. Therefore we project two possible worlds where we decide one way
or the other. This causes two different groups of imaginaries ijk (gatheredness) and
IJK (separation) to appear. If we in turn lose the associative property between these,
then the actual antimony of the whole dialectic is produced in which there is a
different ultimate Other. We could see this different ultimate Other as the new anti-
thesis at the next level up appearing on the horizon. If we posit that the new ultimate
Other (E) is that next level anti-thesis then it is possible to understand the structure
of the dialectic better as involving the interplay of imaginaries at the various hyper-
levels at which they appear. From this view the inner necessity of the structure of
the dialectic comes into view and we see that the process of the dialectic unfolding
is precisely the process by which annihilation is staved off in the Greimas square
which allows annihilation mosaics to persist momentarily. So the process of
unfolding is related to the second meta-level of Being (Process Being) while the
underlying infra-structure of staved off Annihilation relates to the third meta-level
of Hyper-Being. Finally the chiasma that appear within the unfolded logical square
relate to what Merleau-Ponty calls Wild Being which is the fourth meta-level of
1011
Being. The internal structure of the Greimas square brings all these meta-levels of
Being together into a single interlocking structure that can be seen as the Dialectic
or instead using Structuralist approaches as the inner structure of interferences or
tense-gridity that prevents instant annihilation. Similarly we can look at the
succession of arising of thesis and anti-thesis phenomenologically looking at its
essential structure or we might look instead at the meanings of these
hermeneutically. Hermeneutics applies the hermeneutic circle that we recognized in
Rescher’s network structure of Cognitive Systematization. When we allow loops
within the annihilation mosaics which create the possibility of persistence in spite
of continual annihilation then we make this hermeneutical or cognitive systematic
perspective a real part of our critique. Also phenomenology as Merleau-Ponty
argues is the science of essences. What is the testing of a thesis by the production of
anti-theses and non-theses but a way of reducing them to and making visible their
essences. Thus if we look at the application of Greimas square as a method we see
that it defines essences and so is fundamentally an expression of phenomenology.
Greimas uses these structures to define narratives. If we see narrative as chains of
annihilation mosaics and view them as dialectical, then we can see why this method
was so fruitful for him. He was basically abstracting the thesis/anti-thesis structure
from a series of logical oppositions presented in the story. His method is a natural
bridge between the static structuralism of Levi-Strauss and the Dialectics of Marx/
Hegel.
Figure 163:
Binary oppositions Levi-Strauss STATIC
Logical Squares Greimas Schematic
Imaginaries Palmer Prototypical (unfolded)
Dialectics Marx/Hegel DYNAMIC
Underlying the flux of the dialectic is a substructure composed of all the different
kinds of Being working together. This substructure can be summarized in series of
Greimas logical squares. A single square can summarize a series or a series of
squares can attempt to map a set of transformations approximating a dialectical
movement. Underlying the square is a series of binary oppositions that Levi-Strauss
emphasizes that does not change but creates the field in which all changes take
place. What the formulation of prototypical or unfolded structures offers is a way to
understand the details of dialectic transformations which connects the logical
square to the succession of conflicting thesis and antithesis pairs.
We are lead to this understanding of the inner structure of the dialectic by our
1012
attempt to understand the workings of magician meta-systems and their relation to

the special systems theories. In those special systems there is the conjunction that
makes visible the otherwise invisible. We have discovered that the inner structure of
that conjunction is in fact the Greimas square of logical contradictions that are
mutually blocking their annihilations. When we ask how that could possibly be it
becomes clear that it is only possible because of the unfolded complexity of the
structure inherent in the Greimas logical square, but hidden. When we unfold that
complexity we find that it is exactly those structures which give rise to the hyper
algebras that define the special systems. So the hyper-algebras and the special
systems they define the complexity thresholds of are an inner possibility of the
dialectic that connects the dialectic to its structural foundations through the logic of
contradiction. Similarly we find that the notion of loops of annihilation mosaics
gives us a hermeneutical circle similar to what Rescher calls cognitive
systematization of axiomatic networks. And we find that the method of testing of a
thesis is complementary to phenomenologies explorations of essences. Thus our
unfolded/infolded structures connect in basic ways to the fundamental humanistic
methodologies of our time.
But the method we expose is that of Heuristic Research which dwells with a subject
attempting to become one with it and thus gain inner understanding. In his case we
recognize that the role of Heuristic Research is to dwell in annihilation. All of the
other methods in their distancing gloss over the absolute reality of annihilation. The
magician meta-systems posit collusion to bridge the abyss. Hermeneutics
recognizes that the hermeneutic circle is really broken an forms instead a spiral.
Dialectics jumps over the bifurcation points where theses and anti-theses mutate
into syntheses. Structuralism studies the signifiers on either side of demarcations
without studying the nature of the splits themselves. All of the different methods
and models jump over the discontinuous and nonlinear segmentations or chunks
within the historical sequence. But the major point here is that Magician meta-
systems allow us to not assume continuity. It gives us a formalism that allows us to
understand the meta-system within which all systems evolve and vie for viability in
ecosystem niches. In order to deepen our understanding of this noncontinuous
formalism we have had to look into conjunction and within conjunction the logical
square of contradictions. In that we have seen infolded the same fundamental
structures that inform the hyper-algebras and that underlie the different special
systems. But Heuristic Research would bring us back to the annihilation itself and
ask us to dwell in that state of continual falling away which makes us realize the
utter emptiness of everything in the Buddhist sense of “sunyata”. Heuristic
1013
Research would have us stop the train of dialectical thought and stare into the
mirror of the Void.
This is a good point to recap our progress. We started out to look at the special
systems and their mathematical analogies. In the process it was discovered that
there was some kind of relation between these special systems and the meta-
systems and that Magicians can be seen as meta-system formalisms rather than just
models of discontinuous systems. We took that route and explored meta-systems
structures finding the strange nature of conjunction that allows visibility of invisible
kinds of things. Conjunction we discovered to be modeled by the Greimas square.
When we unfolded the Greimas square we found that it contained the proto-
stuctures from which the special systems arise. So we have in fact traveled full
circle. The magician meta-system model that embodies the four meta-levels of
Being arises co-dependently with the special systems that also embody the four
meta-levels of Being. The special systems define the relation between the system
and meta-system. The dialectical development of the system is encompassed by the
inner structure of contradiction and the logic of contradiction which works itself out
by the delay of annihilations. These delays produce the illusion of existence which
is in fact nothing more than the side-effects of annihilations giving rise to other
annihilations and sometimes forming loops that persist within the ongoing FIRE of
utter destruction. In the rest of this essay we will go on to attempt to understand the
relations of systems, meta-systems and the special systems. But here a fundamental
stopping point has been reached where we can turn toward the nature of the
annihilation itself which renders existence an illusion.
When we look at annihilation mosaics we see that from one point of view thesis
gives rise to anti-thesis that in turn give rise to synthesis. But from another point of
view Synthesis is continually breaking down into thetic and anti-thetic parts as
reductionism posits. These two views relate to whether we see Firsts as prior to
Fourths or vice versa. We have seen how the attempt to render decidable the
undecidable opens up alternative possible universes in the unfolded square of
contradictions. Storrs McCall in A MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE explores this
branching that occurs at these decision points that produces a myriad of parallel
universes. He notes that there is two different topological structures of these
branchings -- upper cut which looks like a Y and lower cut that has disconnected
transition points. One is locally Euclidean and the other is non-euclidean. McCall
shows a myriad of different possible connecting structures with branches. Since
branches can go in either direction we see here the way in which the rhizomatous
1014
structure is created between the continual processes of bifurcation and synthesis.

Upper-cuts give continuous transitions across discontinuities but they are not
locally Euclidean. Lower-cuts give discontinuous transitions across discontinuities
but they are locally Euclidean. These two types of transition are probably
undecidable in any case. The momentary intersection of bifurcation and synthesis
renders each point in time indefinite. When we take these two phenomena together
that produce the rhizome we see that it gives us a reality that is both indefinite (due
to the overlap of bifurcation and synthesis) and undecidable (due to the proximity of
upper and lower cuts at the same point in spacetime). The result is the rhizomatic or
non-arborescent structure of heterogeneity that Deleuze and Guattari talk about in A
Thousand Plateaus.
But the question quickly becomes what predominates the indefiniteness of

bifurcation and synthesis or the undecidability of upper and lower cut transitions. In
fact it is impossible to say as both chiasmic relations may predominate in any case.
Therefore, we have a universe where the indefiniteness between bifurcation and
synthesis predominates over the type of transition and another universe where the
type of transition predominates over the indefiniteness in each case. If we try to
decide this undecidability these two possible and overlapping universes are
separated out and become parallel. That separation causes us to posit the utter
opposite of the entire structure which is the spacetime block or endless time in
which all possible alternatives in fact coexist rather than any one particular
alternative being chosen. Thus the rhizome becomes encased in a block of
spacetime with all possible rhizomes. All possible bifurcations and syntheses
coexist with all possible transitions using both upper cuts and lower cuts in their
own possible universe. Looking at the annihilation mosaics as transitions between
bifurcations or synthetic reversed-bifurcations we see that the inner structure of
contradiction has implications for how we view the universe as the intersection of
different aborescent structures within a rhizome.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Onar Aam considers the mathematics of the Grimas square:
Trying to unfold the complex algebras from anti, non and anti-non is a noble
enterprise and intuitively feels right. I also understand that you let the real numbers
represent the purely present reality and that makes it natural to let *i* be time. By
mixing real and imaginary number you get the purely present + time = process
1015
being. I am, however, searching for an asymmetry at this level. In equilibrium

systems time is symmetrical, but not in dissipative systems. Time has an arrow.
This should be reflected in *i*. However, as many have pointed out the arrow of
time very much relies on someone observing the arrow of time. Since observation is
associated with autopoietic systems it is reasonable to assume that the time-
asymmetry becomes visible at the quaternion level. And so it does. Commutativity
is lost. By intertwining time (i) with j and k the asymmetry of time becomes visible.
ij = -ji, ik = -ki and jk = -kj. These three variables form an associative *ring*
(corresponding to an autopoietic ring?). Now, to the inaccuracies in part three. First,
defining ANTI as a square root is hazardous. Sure, anti-A of 1 produces 1 and -1 but
when you perform anti-anti-A you get 1, -1, i and -i. Second, you define non-A as -
1 and from there you get that i and -i annihilate and becomes non-A which is
obviously wrong. (You seem to have noted so yourself) i + -i equals 0 not -1.
(remember, when not in conjunction with the real axis the imaginary numbers
behave exactly like R) To me it seems much more natural to define ANTI and NON
as I did in a recent post to you. ANTI-value is NEGATIVE value. Thus anti-A = -A.
(anti-anti-A is therefore A) Second, NON-value is that which has NO value,
nothing, zilch, zero. Therefore NON-A = 0. (Now you can safely say that
annihilating i and -i is non-A)
Ok then on to the quaternion. In your article you state that (ij)k =/= i(jk) and (IJ)K
=/= I(JK). This is false. The ijk-triplet makes up the associative ring which I stated
earlier.
Figure 164:
i
/ \
/ \
k-----j
You may annihilate any pair of imaginary numbers to get the third (moving
clockwise around the ring). i=jk, ij=k, ki=j, k=ij, jk=i, j=ki. And finally all
annihilate to become anti-A: ijk = jki = kij = -1.
To the octonion. Although the octonion looses its associativity it still has a lot of
local associativity. For instance, in the octonion there are not one but *SEVEN*
such associative rings:
1016
Figure 165:
ijk
iJK
IjK
IJk
IiE
JEj
KEk
In addition several associative epicycles exist. With the help of E, IJK becomes
associative an associative ring. Like ijk=-1 IJK=E. E therefore has a similar status
as -1. The associative epicycles I’ve been able to determine are these:
Figure 166:
EIJK
KJIE
EiKj
jKiE
These may be played with exactly like ijk

Figure 167:
E-------I
| |
| |
| |
K-------J
E = IJK, EI = JK, EIJ = K etc. and you have EIJK = KEIJ = JKEI = IJKE = -1
(Note how this epicycle resembles the Greimas square)
So although I see a great potential in the anti, non, anti-non enterprise there are
some inaccuracies which need to be fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Onar Aam gives a possible solution to the problems in this part of my paper:
1017
I now think I’ve “corrected” your mathematical inaccuracy in your part three. At
least some of it. What you call a relaxed mode can in fact be conceptualized quite
precisely. Here is what I’ve got:
Now, we may view complex rotation as annihilation or annihilation with side

effects. The mathematical operation which corresponds to self-annihilation is i*i,
which is i annihilating itself because along the i-axis we have that i^2 = 0i. -1 is
nowhere. When i^2 self-annihilates it dissapears into nowhere (-1). Suppose now
we start with nothing and perform the exact opposite operation (the Anti) of
squaring. This is squareroot and corresponds to anti-self-annihilation. Suppose now
that we perform the squareroot on -1:
sqr(-1) = i.
We then have that i comes into existence from *nowhere* (-1) through anti-self-
annihilation (squareroot). i is *ordered* from *nowhere*. Thus, anti-self-
annihilation corresponds to *self-organization*. Hence, i corresponds to the level of
the dissipative.
So the mistake I think you did was to not distinguish between additive annihilation
and squaring annihilation. They probably have different meanings. My wild guess
is that there is a difference between *nothing* (0) and *nowhere* (-1). when you
add i + -i you get *nothing* (0). Self-annihilation [ (+-i)^2], on the other hand, is an
eclipse of existence, the center of the vortex. Its existence disappears into
*nowhere* (-1) where it can easily be brought back into existence through self
organization. It is exactly the complex dance of annihilation and self-organization,
in and out of nowhere, which gives dissipative systems a hyper being. Note that
additive- and squaring annihilation are _qualitatively_ different. Additive
annihilation is the bringing together of _opposites_ which (i and -i) results
annihilation into *nothing*. Squaring on the other hand is *SELF-annihilation*
(i*i), i operating on itself, which brings the system into *nowhere* (-1).
4. Aufhebung
Hegelian dialectics as they are displayed in his works are very complex and
controversial. In that context he uses the term Aufhebung to express the production
of the synthesis out of the thesis and anti-thesis. Aufhebung means to conserve,
negate and superseded. There was always a question whether this particular word
1018
from the German language expressed something of universal importance or whether

it was merely an exotic concept peculiar to the German language.
The concept of the dialectic is that reasons or grounds carry within themselves
contradictions that are overcome by higher syntheses and that this is a process of
integration that occurs historically over time. History is this process of self-
overcomming by social groups that forge new grounds for authority within
themselves. Dialectics as Hegel saw them historically are tied directly to the social
structures as their means to legitimation.
We have advanced the concept of Fullerian synthetic Fourths previously in this

series of papers. The dialectic can be seen as a way of forging Fourths as a historical
process within time. Firsts are micro-emergent eventities. They appear as so many
independent theses. When we see an anti-thesis then we have constructed a relation
of Seconds between two Firsts. The Thirds are the significances that accrue from
sets of relations taken together. When Thirds are overdetermined then it is possible
to construct synthetic and synergistic Fourths. The Fourths are new syntheses that
appear out of and within the significant (Third) relations (Seconds) of independent
theses (Firsts) to each other.
As mentioned the opposite movement from synthesis reducing to parts probably

also occurs just as frequently as the move toward greater and greater synthesis. We
might characterize these two movements as fusion and fission. Since both fission
and fusion are continuously occurring and interfering with each other the result is a
rhizomatic world that cannot be accounted for entirely by dialectical movements.
Aufhebung means to conserve while superseding through negation. The

appearance of the anti-thesis is the active negation. The synthesis conserves the
relation of the thesis and anti-thesis to each other in the act of superseding both of
them. Thesis and anti-thesis are themselves amalgamations of Firsts that are
brought into a relation with each other. That relation yields up significance as a by-
product. The synthesis of the two sub-theses is the creation of an integral and
synergetic Fourth. The integration of the sub-theses allows a fit between the thesis
and anti-thesis that overcomes their conflicts. Significance is the vehicle that allows
the proper fit to be found. The fit conserves the essence of the thesis and the anti-
thesis at a new level of integration while superseding them. It negates both of them
in the process -- negating the negation but not returning to the original thesis but
instead advancing to a new thesis that amalgamates the old sub-theses.
1019
In the reverse of this process we see a whole thesis breaking up into conflicting
thesis and sub-thesis parts. A Forth allows multiple determination of parts within a
whole to be used for different purposes. When these parts separate and no longer
allow overdetermination then we get the fissioning in which the parts separate out
from each other and the whole collapses. We call the fissioning reductionism. In the
process of reduction relevances are being generated as we see how the different
parts fit into the context of other parts.
In the rhizome, both significance and relevance are generated by opposing fusion
and fission processes and they interfere with each other. In the rhizome we have
reduction to Firsts and synthesis of Fourths and the play of Seconds (relations) and
Thirds (significance/relevance) continually occurring.
When we look at the rhizome it is clear that undecidability and indefiniteness are
continually at work muddying the waters. So there is no definite and decidable
dialectic that is discernible. Instead we have an undecidable and indefinite
dialectical movement within a context of continual fission. When we look at the
indefinite and undecidable dialectic we see that there is not just the thesis and anti-
thesis but also the boundary with the non-dialectic represented by the non-thesis. As
such the non-anti-thesis as Other arises as the specter that haunts the dialectic -- as
the unconscious that haunts Geist (Spirit). Spirit is the self-consciousness of the
human community involved in the dialectical unfolding. Geist is pure presence of
that community to itself. The opposite of that pure presence of self to self is its
unconscious that haunts it at every point. The Other arises as the combination of the
anti-thesis and what is beyond the confines of the dialectic itself (the non-thesis).
But once the Other has been recognized it is possible to think of it as chiasmic in
that the anti-non chiasmic phase can be separated from the non-anti chiasmic phase.
This occurs when we lose the commutative property and suddenly which phase is
emphasized matters. At that point we actually have three points of reference, anti/
non-thesis, non/anti-thesis and non-anti-thesis (commutative). When we wish to
force a decision between these a second set of three are generated in separate
possible worlds. This is due to our losing the associative property between these
three possibilities. That projects the ultimate opposite of the thesis -- that stands in
for the new synthesis mediated by the anti-thesis and the non-thesis (or Otherness).
This is the inner structure of the dialectic which, in fact, is reversible. We can
instead see the synthesis as degenerating by this same set of possible moves taken in
reverse. The synthesis carries in it two possible worlds where overlapping parts or
1020
relations are used in at least two different ways. These two different possible
configurations each have a chiasmic relation between phases. Those chiasma define
the relation between antithetical parts within the synthesis. Fission breaks apart the
antithetical parts and thus violates the chiasmatic non-dualities converting them into
dualities.
Figure 168:
1)
Thesis
Figure 169:
2)
Thesis
|
|
|
Anti-thesis
Figure 170:
3)
Thesis---------Non-thesis
|
|
|
Anti-thesis
Figure 171:
4)
Thesis---------Non-thesis
| |
| |
| |
Anti-thesis----Non-Anti-theiss
1021
Figure 172:
5)
Non/Anti-thesis
/\
/ \
Thesis---/-----Non-thesis
| / / |
| / / |
| / / |
Anti-thesis----Non-Anti-theiss
\ /
\/
Anti/Non-thesis
Figure 173:
6)
non-associative associative
non-commutative non-commutative
Non/Anti-thesis-A Non/Anti-thesis-B
/\ /\
/ \ / \
Non-thesis-A--\------Thesis---/-----Non-thesis-B
| \ \ | / / |
| \ \ | / / |
| \ \ | / / |
Non-Anti-thesis-A--Anti-thesis-/--Non-Anti-thesis-B
commutative \ / \ / commutative
non-associative \/ \/ associative
| |
Anti/Non-thesis-A Anti/Non-thesis-B
1022
Figure 174:
7)
|------------E------------|
| |
Non/Anti-thesis-J Non/Anti-thesis-j
/\ /\
/ \ / \
Non-thesis-A--\------Thesis---/-----Non-thesis-B
| \ \ | / / |
| \ \ | / / |
| \ \ | / / |
Non-Anti-thesis-I--Anti-thesis-/--Non-Anti-thesis-i
commutative \ / \ / commutative
non-associative \/ \/ associative
| | | |
| Anti/Non-thesis-K Anti/Non-thesis-k |
| non-commutative non-commutative |
| non-associative associative |
| \ / |
| \ / |
|--------------> Synthesis <---------------|
E
Notice that the Synthesis E has a mediated relation to the Thesis and Anti-thesis. It
is mediated by commutative and associative properties or by chaiasm and possible
worlds A and B. Instead we might say Otherness and an internal structuring that
fuses the dualism and reflects. To the extent it produces a reflection it participates at
the level of a reflexive social system and to the extent that it is chiasmic it blends
the living/cognitive or social/psychological together.
The move from thesis to anti-thesis and non-thesis on to the anti-non-thesis and its
loss of commutation and finally its lose of association to produce the synthesis
shows us the inner structure of aufhebung. It allows us to see the continuity between
the level of parts and the level of whole. This continuity is achieved though the
1023
existence of the special systems. The meta-system is the background within which
the dialectic is occurring that allows there to be many non-theses that play off the
thesis and anti-thesis pairings. The meta-system is an arena of firsts that can be
taken as thesis and anti-thesis pairs. The meta-system is the origin of all the
elements that are taken up and synthesized by the dialectic. The meta-system is the
rhizomatic pool of partial-wholes and networks of parts that renews itself by
fissioning what has been fused and fusioning what has been fissioned. Within the
meta-system the dialectic produces the showing and hiding relation between thesis
and anti-thesis. The background to this showing and hiding process is the parts of
the rhizome within the meta-system. The dialectic is continually defining itself
against this background. In that process the Otherness of the anti-non-theses appear.
These may bee seen as chiasmic and reflected and that produces the ultimate
opposite new thesis which is opposite both the thesis and anti-thesis that is also a
synthesis. The synthesis is a detotalized totality within the meta-system at the same
time as it is a totality at the level of the dialectic. It is at once a totalization of
everything to this point and still only an way station on the teleonomic path of the
system.
In Hegel’s terms the chiasmic element brings consciousness and the reflexive
element brings self-consciousness. So consciousness and self-consciousness are
built into the motion of conservation, negation and supersession of Aufhebung. The
fourth arises through over determination of the use of parts within the synthesis.
Thus the functions of the thesis and anti-thesis are preserved within the synthesis
even as they are being superseded by the new integrating level of the Fourth. The
negation of the Firsts is only apparent as the essential relations and significances are
being carried over to the new Fourth. Supersession is really merely an reiteration at
a different meta-level. Anomalies are resolved as a new paradigm replaces the old
one. Categorical discrepancies vanish as a new episteme replaces an older one.
Such a resolution could occur at any of the levels of ontological emergence.
Hegel pointed to the general necessity of contradictions if we are going to think

about movement known since Zeno’s paradoxes. Such a system that allows such
real contradictory elements to coexist is called para-consistent. Para-consistent
logics give us the flexibilty to confront the contradictions that actually occur in
existence, called catch-22 situations externally or schizophrenic conflicting
mindsets when internalized. Our world is both undecidable (para-consistent) and
indefinite (para-complete). So the system of the dialectic merges into the rhizome of
fissioning elements within an overall meta-systemic background that cannot ever be
1024
rendered fully decidable or definite.
Arkady Plotnitsky in his books COMPLEMENTARITY and IN THE SHADOW

OF HEGEL advances an anti-epistemology that attempts to show the relation
between the restricted economy of the dialectic as defined by Hegel and what
Bataille calls the general economy. Here the word economy refers to the internal
and external flows of a system. Every system restricts these flows to those that are
relevant to it. The general economy are all the flows within the meta-systemic
environment within which the system appears. The meta-system is also a proto-
gestalt to the extent that it is the always already lost origin for the systemic gestalt.
The proto-gestalt has what David Boehm calls implicate order, and infolded
ordering that becomes explicit when unfolded. Each system has what Plotnitsky
calls the shadow of a general economy which haunts it. So the dialectic as the
dynamic of the systemic gestalt that shows and hides thesis and anti-thesis by
transforming them into a synthesis or fissioning back into parts has the meta-
systemic general economy within which the dialectic operates and which it
assumes. That general economy is the primordial soup that the dialectic arises out
of and the environment providing resources that sustains the conflict between thesis
and anti-thesis within an arena with its own hidden rules that govern the interactions
of the opponents. Within that arena the conflict of opposites becomes hidden and
the synthesis that supersedes yet preserves continuity is shown. There is a
continuum of showing and hiding as each new synthesis is shown as a series of
supersessions -- or under fissioning, a series of reductions.
Figure 175:
General Economy Ultra-efficient Economy Restricted Economy
Meta-System Special System System
Proto-Gestalt Paradoxical Gestalt Gestalt
Whole less than Whole same as parts Whole greater than
sum of parts sum of parts
Result of complete Fission/Fusion Result of complete
fissioning fusion
Reductionism Partiality Dialectic
Parts only Rhizome Whole only
disassembled assembled
Soup, Shadow Perpetual motion Thing, Object
machine
Between these two higher logical types there exists the hidden possibility of the
special systems for whom the whole exactly equals the sum of the parts. These
special systems are based at levels of complexity indicated by the existence of
1025
complex, quaternion, and octonion numbers and their algebras. They form the basis
within the internal structuring of physos/logos for the dissipative, autopoietic, and
reflexive special systems appear. The algebras of the special systems use
conjunction which keeps the different kinds of numbers at each threshold apart yet
together. Those kinds of numbers can only be seen in conjunction and disappear
when the conjunction is broken. Yet the conjunction never quite results in any real
addition of the different kinds of numbers because that is really impossible. When
we look at conjunction we find that its inner structure is equivalent to the Greimas
square of contraries derived from quantification in the logic of propositions. And
when we look carefully at the inner structure of the Greimas square we see that it is
constructed of self-blocking contradictions. That self-blocking is due to a delay that
occurs because there is a substructure to the square itself. That substructure repeats
the relaxation of properties that generated the different algebras. And ultimately it
give us an articulated relation between the meta-system and system that can be
enacted via the dialectic unfolding. The special systems are the external and static
depiction of an infrastructure that appears again in relation of contradictions to each
other and allows the unfolding Aufhebung of the dialectic. The dialectic must be a
dialogic movement because of its inherent social nature. It is based on reflexivity at
the social/psychological level that yields self-consciousness. It is based on the
chaismic relation of dualities that yields consciousness within the living/cognitive
autopoietic system. It is based on the pattern/form chiasmic relation at the level of
dissipative system which sets up the basic movement of the dialectic as a
dissipative system within the meta-systemic arena.
5. Where does synthesis come from?
The question arises and needs to be explored as to where the synthesis comes from
which appears to be projected as the E imaginary term. First we construct the
Greimas square of contradiction, then we fall back from the positing of the Other as
the anti-non-thesis into the chiasma of the reversibility between anti and non when
the commutative property is relaxed. After that if we go on to relax the associative
property then two possible worlds are created in which there are two ‘nons’ and to
anti-nons where we distinguish between the unity of ijk and the dispersion of IJK.
At this moment at the octonion level there is the projection of the E which is the
final element of the octonion imaginaries that appears suddenly as if from no where
as synthesis. However, there is another way we can look at this situation which
must be considered. We can see the production of the two nons and anti-nons from
the thesis and anti-thesis as the fragmentation of the Other as the non-thesis
1026
becomes differentiated. But we can also think of this as the production of a ring
which would be completed by the positing of the synthesis and anti-synthesis
through a similar construction. That construction would posit that a new pair of
Greimas squares that were dual to the first pair arose to create the opposites of the
thesis and anti-thesis. The E imaginary element would be identified with one of
these new positions in the ring of squares of contradiction. Arising with this
synthesis would be the anti-synthesis that would appear at the next level of the
dialectic.
Figure 176:
T thesis
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ A anti-thesis
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
non-thesis-y N1 / \ N2 non-thesis-x
|\ / \ / |
anti-non-thesis-y I i anti-non-thesis-x
| \ / |
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ E / /
\ S synthesis
\ | /
X anti-synthesis
In this configuration there is a dual of the unfolding of the Greimas square that
gives rise to the synthesis and anti-sythesis. So the synthesis and anti-synthesis does
not come from nowhere but by the completion of the ring of the squares of
contradiction. So there is an inner logic to dialectics which we only see if we relate
the square of contradiction used by Greimas to describe narratives to the relaxation
of the algebraic laws. To my knowledge no one has ever treated this inner logic of
contradiction before. All treatments of dialectics have been external in the sense
that they see the thesis begetting the anti-thesis which through conflict resolution
gives rise to an external solution of the synthesis that has the characteristics of
aufhebung (preserving while negating and superseding). This inner logic of the
dialectic sees the synthesis as arising though a specific interaction of the algebraic
laws that is in concert with the characteristics of the Magician system which as the
features of annihilation, mutual action and gestalt joining. These characteristics of
1027
the Magician system arise by the relaxation of the algebraic properties in the
generation of hyper-algebras. First it is the production of blocking contradictions
that gives us the characteristic of annihilation and produces the contradiction (anti-
non-element) in relation to the thesis. But this element is recognized to be the Other
which is an extreme opposite to the thesis and in fact is too extreme a position. We
are forced to fall back from this extreme into non-dual chiasmic modes where either
the anti or the non is emphasized -- but in which they form reversible relation. So
we posit that within the square of contradictions are a series of reversible chiasmic
relations between the contradictions that allow us to avoid contradiction by entering
a non-dual mode that is implicit within the square itself. Then when we go further
and loose not just the commutative property that reveals chiasma but also lose the
associative property the we see that there arises possible worlds in which many
contradictions or Others confront the thesis and anti-thesis pair. In our case two
such Others arise as the anti-non-thesis differentiates itself. This spreading of the
wings of the square of contradiction, so to speak, reveals the possibility of the dual
of the winged square of contradiction. That dual when figured gives us the the
synthesis and anti-synthesis as the opposite duals of the thesis and anti-thesis
mediated through the fragmentation of otherness and the inner non-duality within
the square of contradiction. Synthesis unfolds from the articulation of the square of
contradictions itself; not from any external source. The square of contradiction is
already taking into account the relation between the thesis and its opposite and the
relation of both of them to what is other than them (the non-thesis). This concern for
the other produces the Other (anti-non-thesis) from which we must draw back into
non-duality, because the Other is too extreme a difference to contemplate (this is the
position of Arkady Plotnitsky’s anti-epistemology). Drawing back into the non-
duality form the Other, allows us to create an inner difference of possibility which
cause the square itself to unfold its wings. This inner difference of possibility is the
same as the fragmentation of the Other. The fragmentation of the Other causes the
fragmentation of the Self (the thesis/anti-thesis pair). The fragmentation of the Self
occurs when the other is taken into the self at some level and to some degree which
is less than the absolute Other. The synthesis and anti-synthesis is the new
coherence of the Self with some element of the other added which allows the
differences between thesis and anti-thesis to be overcome while preserved. The
move from thesis/anti-thesis pair to synthesis/anti-synthesis is a negation because
we are thrown from one winged square of contradiction into its dual. But we remain
within the same ring of squares of contradiction which encompasses and extends
the thesis/anti-thesis duality by encompassing some element of otherness while at
the same time it recoils from complete Otherness which fragments causing the Self
1028
to fragment as a mirroring. We see the arising of the synthesis but it is bound to the
new anti-synthesis and both of these are part of the same ring of contradictions. The
expansion of the Self to encompass a synthesis by incorporation of the Other at the
same moment causes the dependent co-arising of an even more radical departure
from the original center of the self that must be taken into the Self in order to
explore the new face of otherness and to construct another picture of the absolute
Other at the next level of unfolding. There is a possibility of a continuous unfolding
in which the Self evolves by always taking into itself otherness by a recoil from the
Other and by the differentiation of the Self through the fragmentation of the Other.
This unfolding is opposite the loops of annihilations that give rise to side effects
which further annihilate. The unfolding of the Self through the inner logic of the
dialectic is the progressive face of what in its obverse is the continual annihilation
of the world that is prolonged via the constant production of side-effects that
themselves annihilate but produce their own side-effects and sometimes create
stable loops that allow us to see the world as a stable cluster of states of affairs in
spite of continual annihilation. When annihilations block the Self arises as the
unfolding of the Greimas square which will enter into a ring of squares of
contradiction that progressively produce higher and higher levels of synthesis and
anti-synthesis. But all these levels of dialectical unfolding are a house of cards that
falls into the catastrophe of annihilation by the very mechanism that produces
successive synthesis. The production of the Synthesis is the unblocking of the
contradiction of the ring. So the creation of higher and higher levels of synthesis in
the Self is precisely the process of annihilation of the Self. The dialectical unfolding
of the Self is dependent on the inner dimension of destruction by which the Self is
annihilated. So here we find the truth of the Buddhist assertion that the Self IS
empty. The self is falling into annihilation in its very act of expanding to
comprehend otherness. This is because the relaxation of the algebraic properties of
commutation and association by which synthesis occurs causes the square of
contradiction to unblock itself which triggers annihilation. We get a picture very
similar to that Nietzsche proposes for Zarathustra climbing the mountain. As he
puts down his foot the mountain is created to be a place for the foot to fall, but as he
raises his other foot the mountainside vanishes from under it fading into nothing.
Similarly the expansion of the self is the annihilation of the self.
1029
Figure 177:
T conscious
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ A anti-conscious = noumena
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
reflexive N1 / \ N2 non-conscious
|\ / \ / |
self-conscious I i unconscious
| \ / |
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ A anti-Spirit
\ | /
S Spirit
E
If we apply this unfolding of the Greimas square of contradiction to consciousness

we see that we can define the anti-conscious along with Kant as the noumena. The
aspect of the object that never appears within consciousness. The non-conscious is
everything else other then consciousness that is not noumena. It might be seen as
the side-effects of our actions/thoughts that we are not aware of. The anti-non-
consciousness is then the unconscious discovered by Freud and illuminated by
Jung, Lacan and others. We identify it with what M. Henry calls the essence of
manifestation or pure immanence, i.e. that which never appears in consciousness
which Henry likens to Meister Echart’s Cloud of Unknowing. It is that which never
appears but which counter organizes consciousness in a way that allows us to see its
traces in what does appear. The unconscious is too absolute in Plotnitsky’s sense.
We must fall back from the unconscious which is transcendent and cannot ever be
known. As Lacan correctly analyzes it the Unconscious in this sense is the absolute
Other. When we lose the ability to commute the anti-non freely we are left with the
chiasm between the noumena and the non-conscious. These are differentially
exercised and become a reversible phased interval. Falling back into the non-dual
chiasm we see the “invisible” as the phase tilted toward the noumena and “semi-
consciousness” of the states between waking and sleeping as the phase tilted toward
the non-conscious. The invisible comes from the symmetries of the
1030
unconsciousness that we have spoken of before which is what hides the

unconscious from us even though we are in the midst of it. Similarly we can
imagine a chiasma between the unconscious and consciousness. When this chiasma
is tilted toward the unconscious our attention is drawn to the distortions of the
unconscious in consciousness and on the other hand when the chiasma is tilted
toward the conscious then we see the visible as the asymmetries that allow us to
differentiate things within the conscious realm. These two chiasma which connect
the contradictions of the square allow us to describe what appears within the realm
of consciousness within the limit of the unconscious in terms of the visible and
invisible as opposed to the distortions and the semi-conscious states. These
reversibilities of the chiasmas form a field which we can identify with Lacan’s
concept of the Imaginary. The Imaginary is identified with the symbiosis with the
mother of the child. In this symbiosis in which the child “bears” (cf. Levinas) the
ministrations of the mother there is a showing and hiding between the visible and
the invisible within which appears the distortions and displacements that prove the
existence of the Other that is never shown. But all this takes place without high
definition in a hazy or semi-conscious state of mind that cannot be exactly pinned
down.
Figure 178:
asymmetrical
visible
/\
/ \
/ \
Conscious Unconscious
\ /
\ /
\/
distortions
differals
Figure 179:
semi-conscious
between waking
and sleep
/\
/ \
/ \
Noumena Non-conscious
1031
\ /
\ /
\/
invisible
symmetry
When we fall back from the definition of the Other to the chiasmic field suddenly
there are three imaginary values instead of one. The imaginary value of the Other
has differentiated into two other imaginaries of the reversibility between the phases
of the interval of the chiasm. If depart from this state to loose the associative
property as well as the commutative property already lost, then we generate a
second possible Greimas square of contradictions. This second square of
contradictions posits that the non-conscious is reflexivity and the anti-non-
consciousness in this case is self-consciousness instead of the unconscious. Self-
consciousness like the unconscious is too absolute in our conception. We are never
perfectly unconscious nor self-conscious. We need to take a more radical position
that relaxes into a non-dual chiasmatic field. As we fall back from extreme
otherness of the self-consciousness there are generated four moments of
reversibility. These are as follows:
Figure 180:
self-awareness
/\
/ \
/ \
Conscious Self-Conscious
\ /
\ /
\/
attention
Figure 181:
blindspots
/\
/ \
/ \
Noumena Reflexivity (mirroring)
\ /
\ /
1032
\/
repetition
These moments of reversibility form an interference pattern within the block of

contradictions. Thus the relations between the moments of reversibility are
completely indeterminate and undecidable. Where the reversibility occurs is
dependent on the position of the observer. The positions of the observers are at
points outside any one chiasma at other points on the dialectical cube. Each
reversibility is independent of every other reversibility. So there is no way to
determine the structure of the whole field from the outside. It is like a plastic cube
with flaws in it that intersect and criss-cross. Only in this case the play of each
reversibility may change over time and it will look like it is in different places to
different subjects from different frames of reference. This is the nature of chiasma.
They are like spacetime blocks in which the reversibility between time and space
changes from different inertial frames. In this case the different reversibilities
intersect within the cube of the dialectic and create an interference pattern that is
constantly changing. Some of the changes are merely apparent -- existing as relative
shifts in relation to observers. Other changes are real differences in the play of the
reversibility in relation to its limits. The two together create an indeterminatness
and undecidability that cannot be healed. But on the other hand it allows us to enter
into a non-dual relation that is not completely dominated by the terms of the square
of contradiction as it appears externally. Instead we have revealed an inner
dimension to that cube that has not been articulated before. We have discovered the
inner logic to the dialectical process, and non-dual chiasma plays an important and
unexpected role in that process.
Figure 182:
Repetition
| Attention
| | Visible (asymmetry)
| | | Semi-conscious
| | | |
/\ / \ /\ /\
/ \ / \/ \ / \
Reflexivity--/\---Conscious--\/-----Non-conscious
| \ / \ / |\ / \ / |
| \/ /\ | \/ \ / |
| / \ / \ | / \ / \ |
Self-Conscious-----Noumena---\-/--Unconscious
1033
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ \/ \/ \/
| | | |
| | | Distortions
| | Invisible (symmetry)
| Blindspots
Self-awareness
Figure 183:
Spontaneity
| Oblivion
| | False-consciousness
| | | Self-criticism
| | | |
/\ / \ /\ /\
/ \ / \/ \ / \
Non-conscious/\---Anti-Spirit\/-----Reflexivity
| \ / \ / |\ / \ / |
| \/ /\ | \/ \ / |
| / \ / \ | / \ / \ |
Unconscious--------Spirit----\-/--Self-conscious
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ \/ \/ \/
| | | |
| | | Inauthenticity
| | Ideology
| Frenzy
"Invisible hands" (unseen causes)
In this figure we have recapitulated the structure of the winged Greimas square and
have shown the anti-winged dual that brings the synthesis and anti-synthesis into
existence. The reversibilities in each winged square are marked. These are
hypothesized reversibilities. Some thought might show that the actual nature of the
chiasma are somewhat different. Here we have merely attempted to think through
the ramifications of the chiasma and the unfolding of the square into different
dimensions in terms of the example of consciousness to show how this inner logic
of the dialectic works. The important thing here is not the content of the example as
much as the concept that the square relaxes back into the chiasma and then unfolds
1034
into another dimension and splits into a winged structure that calls forth its own
completion by the postulation of the dual winged structure that completes the circle
or more exactly completes the cube. The significant point is that synthesis and anti-
synthesis do not come from out of nowhere, as perhaps they seem to in the external
descriptions of the dialectic, but come from the completion of the cube created with
the chiasmic square unfolds into an orthogonal dimensionality. A crucial thing to
notice is that the synthesis appears diagonal to consciousness and anti-synthesis
appears diagonal to the noumena across the cube. In other words the synthesis
comes from the triangulation of the two anti-’nons’ of the fragmented Other while
the anti-synthesis appears out of the fragmentation of the non-thesis. In other words
things come out of their opposites. The cube gives a rigorous treatment of this
necessity first alluded to by the Tao Te Ching.
Playing out this example we can learn something about the model of consciousness
we have attempted to develop in earlier papers in this series and the series ON THE
Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds. First the thesis and anti-thesis can be
seen as the two epicenters of the ellipse of consciousness adapted from the model of
Dunne and Jahn (Margins Of Reality). So this unfolding can be seen as the
structural transformation of that ellipse of consciousness. But it also allows us to
understand that such a determinate and decidable model is only a classical
approximation and that actually that classical model breaks down immediately into
an non-dual chiasmic field of interferences (mutually exclusive and interacting
constraints). We can never experience pure self-consciousness or pure
unconsciousness. These are conceptual extremes that are too absolute and not
complementary enough. When we add mutual interacting complementarities then
we get the pattern of chiasma within the dialectical cube. Out of this dialectic arises
Spirit (Geist). But this again is an extreme opposite that is conceptually posited that
is never experienced. Spirit is the heart-mind glorified. The opposite of this (the
anti-synthesis or anti-spirit) is the dark shadow of the spirit that Plotnitsky talks
about. It is the nihilistic landscape, the body as dominated, the negative fourfold
(Chaos, Night, Abyss, Covering) that haunts the positive fourfold of Heidegger
(Gods, Man, Heaven, Earth). The glory is the fusion of the positive fourfold the
attempt to completely rise above (transcend) the negative fourfold. Thus the
extreme of Spirit creates the opposite extreme of everything left out and abandoned
by the economy of Geist. When you move dialectically from the Unconscious and
Self-consciousness you get Spirit. The backlash from this movement is the Anti-
spirit that is poised between non-conscious and reflexivity. Anti-spirit is
engendered by the less extreme parts of the square of Greimas that embodies
1035
otherness. Spirit comes from the dialectical jump from the unconscious and self-
consciousness simultaneously. Spirit is the extreme of human awareness embodied
by Achilles (heights of glory) and Oedipus (depths of degradation). Spirit appears to
fuse the positive fourfold but it contains within it a moment of darkness (the
inhuman murder of Achilles enraged or the broken incest taboo of Oedipus). Spirit
is haunted by the shadow of anti-spirit as Arkady Plotnitsky has shown. The
classical restricted economy entails the wider general economy that embodies the
complementarities of non-dual relations drawing back from the conceptual
extremes of the classical models.
The movement from thesis to synthesis is a motion of transcendence. Here we are

seeing ontological monism in action where transcendence attempts to ground itself.
But that very movement is the unblocking of the square of contradictions that leads
to annihilation. This is the essence of the problem for ontological monism. It passes
though the Abyss to ground itself. It is inherently groundless. In the very action of
transcendence there is the groundlessness of annihilation sewn. But in the process
we also pass through the chiasmic landscape implicit in the dialectical cube and we
also realize the possibilities of other dimensionalities as the square unfolds its wings
and realizes its duality. This implicit duality and these realms of possibilities in
other dimensions are very important discoveries which link to the different kinds of
Being and their articulation into meta-levels.
A crude dialectics presents us with a deterministic and almost mechanical

dialectical process. What we find unsatisfactory in the presentations of Hegel and
Marx might be summarized by the deterministic and decidable movement of a three
stroke engine that they posited. Attempts such as those of Sartre in Critique Of
Dialectical Reason to render a dialectical account of the dialectic have not been
embraced by other theorists of the dialectic and so this philosophy seems to have
foundered in our much changed world where natural philosophy in the form of high
energy physics has taken center stage revealing principles that completely
destabilize all classical models of the universe. This is why Arkady Plotnitsky’s
work is so important. He brings together the work of Derrida, Bataille, and Bohr
and show how they interrelate and produce an anti-epistemology. Which would lead
ultimately to an anti-ontology such as that we have posited that sees the meta-levels
of Being intersecting with Buddhist emptiness. Just as Plotnitsky says Derrida is not
radical enough, we posit that Plotnitsky is not radical enough when he restricts
himself to the critique of epistemology. In the ontology developed in these papers
and before in my dissertation The Structure Of Theoretical Systems In Relation To
1036
Emergence (L.S.E. 1982) there are a series of ontological meta-levels discovered in

modern continental philosophy that end in unthinkability. When we interpret that
unthinkabilty as emptiness (in the Buddhist sense) then we realize that we have
constructed an implicit anti-ontology that is the dual of Plotnitsky’s anti-
epistemology. The four meta-levels of Being cancel with emptiness to leave only a
void. So annihilation appears at multiple levels within this anti-ontology. But the
cancellation leads us to non-duality that can be described chiasmically as the
ultimate position of our metaphysics. Loy describes this position very well in his
book Non-duality. We can describe this non-duality though the logic of the
unfolding of the dialectic. That non-dual chiasma is opposite the bifurcation of
dimensionalities in the unfolding of the dialectic. These are our complementarities
and they relate to the different kinds of Being. In Software Engineering
Foundations: Software Ontology it has been shown that each kind of Being is
related to a different kind of mathematics. Deterministic mathematics is restricted to
Pure Presence while other relations are those between statistics and Process Being,
fuzzy math and Hyper Being and finally chaos math and Wild Being. Both Hegel
and Marx’s dialectics were constructed as deterministic models of impossible
processes. In other words motion assumes contradiction which classical systems did
not allow. Dialectical treatments embraced contradiction and dealt with movement
which other metaphysical systems avoided in order to stay in tune with logic. So
dialectics appeared to move into the process arena but represented process as
conflict resolution which was deterministic and mechanistic and thus almost as
frozen as the non-contradictory systems of philosophy. Sartre was the first to treat
the dialectic dialectically in a major critical work. Thus he introduced true process
into the dialectic. But it is a work that has been more or less ignored even within the
French schools of thought. But it is the true inheritor of the dialectical movement
which has been radicalized in terms of Process Being. Dialectical Dialectics or
meta-dialectics cannot be deterministic. At most they can be treated only
statistically. Sartre does not himself draw this conclusion but it is clear that there is
a direct relation between the Process Being of Heidegger and meta-dialectics of
Sartre. Annihilation only enters the picture when we reach the level of Hyper Being.
When we consider the discontinuities that break up the assumed continuity of
processes then we see that these continuities may be understood in terms of the
cancellation of group (mathematical) transformations. So it is at the level of Hyper-
Being that the square of contradictions becomes important to us. Discontinuities
pop out of nowhere and transform the dialectically evolving dialectics. At this level
we must leave behind statistics and consider fuzzy sets as our way of portraying the
possibilities out of which the probabilistic actualities arise. Finally when Wild
1037
Being appears we see the chiasma between continuity and discontinuity. At this
level it is chaos theory that describes the mixture of order and disorder that ensues.
In Wild Being we get as close to the non-duality of emptiness itself as possible and
still be able to talk about it or think about it.
Now consider this. When we speak of the thesis and anti-thesis duality we are
talking about determinate and decidable terms. But when we start talking about a
non-thesis suddenly we are entering some degree of indeterminateness into our
considerations. In this case that indeterminateness might be modeled by statistical
probabilities. But as we fall back from the Other (anti-non-thesis) then we enter
non-dual chiasmas which model chaotic interference patterns between multiple
reversibilities. Only after we have fallen back into non-dualities do we enter the
stage of producing dimensions of possibilities beyond those conceived of in the
initial formulation of the square. This production of possibilities brings fuzziness
into consideration. Essentially we have posited the extreme Other and fallen back
from it into non-duality. But out of that retreat comes the consideration of other
possibilities which allows us to rise above the undecidability and indeterminateness
that haunts the square of contradictions. This allows us to rise above the
cancellation of thesis and anti-thesis to a new level of synthesis. The dialectic
produces Fourths out of Firsts and their diametrical opposites. But this production
does not occur merely by positing Seconds and the continuities of Thirds. Instead it
comes from the falling back away from extreme opposites of the initial First and the
branching out into other dimensions though which overdetermination of relations
become possible.
So similar to the formalism of Goertzel’s magicians the inner logic of the unfolding
of the dialectic contains within it all the different kinds of Being interacting to
create a complete model of chaotic processes. The difference is that Goertzel’s
magicians model the meta-process whereas the inner logic of unfolding of the
dialectic comes out of the application of the algebraic properties of the special
systems to the square of contradiction and is an unexpected result. We might posit
that there is a series of steps from the meta-system (general economy) that
embodies the complementarities of our anti-epistemology and anti-ontology to the
system (restricted economy). These series of steps are as follows:
Figure 184:
Language-ing, domain
^
|
--- Gestalt, System, Restricted Economy
1038
|
|
Pointing, Pure Presence, Parmenidian Stasis
^
|
--- Dissipation (special system)
|
|
Grasping, Process Being, Continuity, Heraclitian Flux
^
|
--- Autopoiesis (special system)
|
|
Bearing, Hyper Being, Annihilation, Discontinuity
^
|
--- Reflexivity (special system)
|
|
Encompassing, Wild Being, Chiasma, Reversibility, Non-duality
^
|
--- Meta-system, General Economy, Proto-gestalt, Complementarity
|
|
Emptiness (anti-epistemology, anti-ontology), Silence
In this schema what we see is that the meta-system describes the limits of our
ability to know and control. Chiasmatic Wild Being is as close as we can get to
comprehending the nature of the non-duality of the emptiness about which we can
only be silent. But we move toward the systemic gestalt from the meta-system in a
series of states each of which alternate a special system with a kind of Being. This is
to say that the discontinuities between the special systems are the kinds of Being
and vice versa. These special systems allow us to build up the properties of
superconductivity that are unique to them. We can model the meta-system itself
with Goertzel’s magicians. But Magician meta-systems are dependent on
annihilation and embody the properties of mutual action and gestalt bonding. These
properties come form the special systems. And when we consider annihilation and
its blocking we come to look closely at the concept of conjunction. Eventually we
realize that conjunction is in fact captured in the Greimas square of logical
contradiction. When we apply the algebraic relaxation of properties to the Greimas
square then we find the inner logic of the unfolding of the dialectic. So there are
complementary views of the special systems as moments in the unfolding of the
1039
dialectic and as special systems that embody dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive
properties. These are dynamic in integrated as opposed to static and independent
modes of the special systems. Together these special systems allow us to
differentiate the stages of emergence defined by the meta-levels of Being which in
turn allow us to differentiate the special systems from each other. In the dialectical
manifestation the different aspects of the unfolding of the dialectic embody the
kinds of Being in coherent and interrelated action. Finally what has emerged is
presented to us as a showing and hiding gestalt or system. That system is the folded
up meta-system. The system and the meta-system are complementary ways of
looking at the same thing, the manifest eventity within the western worldview. That
eventity has popped out of the void. But in this worldview the layers of Being and
the differentiation of the special systems intervenes between the thing and its
shadow (the meta-system). We might call the science of special systems
HOLONOMICS expanding on the intuition of Arthur Koestler who envisioned that
there was a special structure between the view of the whole (the sysetms view) and
the view that only sees the parts (the meta-systems view.) This intermediary
structure between the system and the meta-system which is Janus faced
differentiates into the three special systems related to dissipative, autopoietic and
reflexive systems. In other worldviews like the Islamic and the Chinese a
completely different coherence occurs which posits that there is only the void and
the eventity and the kinds of Being vanish. But true to the complementary spirit of
these worldviews, the entity is seen now as an instance of a special system. What is
a lost possibility in the western system that is only discovered as an extreme
anomaly is the primary mode of perception and thought in the traditional Chinese
and Islamic systems that have no concept of Being and only have things arising
directly from the void without intermediary. The special systems are the primary
way of viewing phenomena in these traditional systems, and that is why they are so
ill understood by us today as we start from exactly the opposite ontological and
epistemic premises.
Languaging is the opposite of silence. It can only occur on the basis of handedness
of the various meta-levels. The domain of language encompasses the systems and
meta-systems. Meanings appear directly from the void. The meta-levels of Being
only serve to repress this primordial process. Thus when we posit the Geode theory
of meaning there are three layers. The Geode has the other shell that looks like a
rock ball. Within that there is a crystalline structure which in this case is represented
by the meta-levels of Being and the special systems. Finally, the geode is empty
inside. All things in this world are empty in the Buddhist sense. It is because they
1040
are empty that things can be full of meaning. It is because of the emptiness that we
can appreciate the crystalline structuring. But ultimately there is only void and
things. Being is an illusion. It is constantly undermined by its own groundlessness.
This has been a claim since Nietzsche. But our work has shown exactly how this
occurs. It occurs because the dialectical process of creating Fourths from Firsts is
exactly the process that allows the square of contradiction to unravel and self-
annihilate. As you take a step forward you are taking a step backward. Thus we are
caught like Zarathustra placing our foot down to find the manifest mountain and
raising our foot only to have it vanish beneath us. This walking on the void,
mythologized in our tradition in the story of Jesus walking on water, must be
accepted as the non-duality of manifestation (primary process). The Western
tradition self-destructs. But when Being is washed away from our eyes, then we see
that the world has not vanished but has only been realized anew with respect to its
essential nature that Plato tried to point out in the parable of the Cave and the one
who is taken forcibly from the cave. That one cannot describe the world beyond the
cave that he has seen, the non-dual world. Yet we live in it every moment. That is
the Dharmadatu, the Tathagata Gharba, the interpenetration of the world seen from
the point of view of emptiness in which there is pure Fourthness without the
necessity of its production.
6. In the Magical Mirrorhouse
We can describe our problematic by means of a diagram which Onar Aam
(onar@hsr.no) and I have variously worked on and improved.
Figure 185:
CATEGORIES FIELDS NOWHERE

Fourths \
-- Socius \
Thirds X -- Society \ Magical
-- Self X -- Mirrorhouse . . Void
Seconds X -- Mind /
-- DM /
Firsts / (mimmickers)
Figure 186:
Real Complex Quaternion Octonion nothing
System Dissipative Autopoietic Reflexive Meta-system
Gestalt Proto-
gestalt
where DM = Desiring Machines (Deleuze and Guattari ANTI-OEDIPUS) which Onar

Aam calls the Mimickers and I prefer to call the Chatterers or better still
with David Grove would call the 'children within' the adult (that is the
fragmentary selves stopped at specific points in time before traumatic
1041
events in our lives.
Figure 187:
Firsts = orthogonal asymmetrical emergents
Seconds = relations between emergents
Thirds = continuities based on relations
Fourths = synergies of relations embedded in continuities
Society Two ways to
dissipatively combine
orders the hierarchy
desiring machines and heterarchy
OR
Mind disipatively Onar relates these
orders the socius to the genetic
regulative system
The self is the

interface between The two flows resonate
these two to produce a symbiotic
dissipative flows balance between the two
dissipative systems
The nodes of an autopoietic
system are themselves
quaternions as well
as the autopoietic system
as a whole. The nodes of
the autopoietic system
replicate the whole
autopoietic system.
When two individuals

who both have selves
developed by this
interfacing of
dissipative systems
entrain they produce
a reflexive system
Notice that in this scheme Desiring Machines (DM) are the field that is ordered by
Society as when a baby as organism is socialized. Society is the Nowhere from
which the ordering comes to the baby. This is called by G.H. Mead the
“Generalized Other.” The socius is the field that is ordered by the order from the
nowhere of the Mind. In other words we project our construct of the mind on the
actions of others. The socius is the general operation of intersubjectivity. We do
understand what others are doing even though we have not possibility of direct
introspection. We hypothesize that this is because each of us has a mind like the
minds of others that organizes the social field in such a way that we know what
others actions mean. It has recently been hypothesized that autism occurs when
those parts of the brain that allow us to project the social field and imagine the
1042
perspectives of others are dysfunctional. What we see here is a model of a dual

dissipative system where the abstracted “Society” organizes the field of the bodies
response while the abstracted “Mind” organizes the social field. Thus the two
dissipative systems form a chiasma of exchange and interaction. It is not the Mind
that organizes the Desiring Machines and the Social that organizes the social field
as would be assumed in a dualistic system. But in the non-dualistic system each side
of the dualism of Society and Mind orders the substrate of the other side of the
dualism. This dynamic chiasma causes an interference pattern to appear that is the
Self. The self is the interface between the socius and the Desiring Machines.
Deleuze and Guattari say quite rightly that the Individual level which we usually
focus on in Western culture is an illusion. It is in fact the realm of side-effects
thrown off by the dual motion of dissipation from two no-wheres onto the substrates
of the other simultaneously. These two loops when they become harmonized form a
symbiotic relation that becomes the autopoietic system. But even when symbiosis
occurs because we loose the associative property there are asymmetries which
occur in the homeostatic activities of the interlocked symbiotic dissipative systems.
Those asymmetries appear as the mirrorhouse of reflexivity which is the basis for
heterodynamic ecstasies. Ecstasy means out of oneself. Two individuals that have
both been brought up in the same social field and have similar orthogonal sets of
desiring machines may at a higher level enter into a symbiosis with each other in
which each of them are out of themselves. But that becomes a mutual projection of
a world which encompasses both of them belonging together as the Same. Each of
the individuals are out of themselves into each other. This is almost a definition of
mutual love and understanding. Each individual has Care as Heidegger says but the
Care for the other more than the self is what establishes the love that is the basis of
our mutual world. We can do that as individuals because internally each of us do
that with the two dissipative systems that compose our self as the interference
pattern between them. Thus the self and the mirrorhouse are duals of each other.
The mirrorhouse is the Self of society. The Hindus called that greater self Atman.
We might call it culture. Whatever we call it it is the mirror that every individual
looks into by which he sees everything outside him as a mirror of what is going on
inside himself. All of us projecting onto the world and seeing what is
undifferentiated in ourselves as differentiated in the world creates the magical
mirrorhouse. What is magical is that in the case of the reflexive system what goes
on outside really is that goes on inside. The inside is the outside and the outside is
the inside. In these statements the IS must be crossed out as Derrida suggests in OF
GRAMMATOLOGY. There is an essential movement of DifferAnce between the
inside and the outside that makes them the Same but not identical. In other words,
1043
distortion enters into the transformation between the inside and the outside as we
realize their Sameness. They are the Same inspite of this distortion that refuses to
allow their identity (cf. Heidegger Identity And Difference).
The Buddhist analysis on this model is doubly right. The self is an illusion, whether
it is the self of the individual or the greater self of the society within the projection
of the world. The self between socius and desiring machines is just an interference
pattern. The Magical mirrorhouse between Society and Mind is similarly just an
interference pattern. The only difference between these two is that we are
suspended in one as individuals acting together while each of us has suspended
within us the relation between the social field and the orthogonal desiring machines.
All the interference patterns of the Selves are together the single encompassing
interference pattern of the Magical Mirrorhouse. The Selves appear as figures on
the ground of the global interference pattern. There is a single hologram which self
sees from different viewpoints which makes them think there are really many
different holograms. This inability to decide and distinguish the Mirrorhouse from
the Selves is a fundamental problem, a wicked problem that can never be resolved
because we are selves that are trying to resolve it. We are completely embroiled
within the rhizome of the mirrorhouse, always caught in the middle of it with no
access to any “headland above the world” from which we could sort out the selves
from each other. Thus standing waves set up by the special systems within this
global/local interference pattern are utterly non-dualistic. It is impossible to create a
determinate and decidable system on the background of the undecidable and
indeterminate meta-system. Every time we attempt to do so our sand castles are
washed back into the sea of non-duality.
Desiring Machines form a rhizome of connections (Seconds) between orthogonally

manifest juttings from the unconscious (Firsts). The Self or individual is made up of
relations between the person and everything else in the world which is socially
constructed as a logocentric narrative. (see _Conversational Realities_ by John
Shotter London: Sage 1993). The logocentric continuity of the narrative in which
there is diacritical significance generated qualifies as a Third in Peirce’s categorical
system. The socius is the network of individuals that appears as a field within which
the Selves of the community are organized by the community. Thus the social
fabric qualifies as a Third but also has the synergistic qualities of B. Fuller’s
fourths. Between the Desiring Machines and the Self there is an interference
pattern not unlike the Mandelbrot set. The same is the case between the Self and the
socius. As Aam points out these are dynamical systems with chaotic dynamics. The
1044
Social and the Mind are constructed out of the relations between the Socius and the
Self in the first place and between the Self and the Desiring Machines in the second
place. They appear as dual ways of combining the hierarchical and heterarchical
networks that Goertzel mentions in The Structure Of Mind and Chaotic Logic. It
was my discovery in an earlier paper the series On The Social Construction Of
Emergent Worlds that by reversing the roles of these two kinds of networks one can
move from the psychological model of Goertzel to a social model that employs his
results. Thus I venture that the Social and the Mind are duals which appear from the
two possible combinations of the hierarchical and heterarchical networks.
Onar Aam goes so far as to relate Mind and Society in this cascade to the genetic
regulatory system that appears in evolution. In other words these are sources of
order that appear from statistical variation and holding certain things constant over
time. They are as J. Monod suggests teleonomic systems not reified teleologies as
we often reify them to be.
Between Society and Mind appear another interference pattern constructed like the
Mandelbrot set but made using the quaternions. The Julia sets associated with this
meta-mandelbrot set is are very complex and interesting. We have already seen that
there is a mirroring back and forth between the autopoietic quaternions at the level
of the reflexive. At this level there is an even higher order meta-meta-mandelbrot
set and associated Julia sets which describe the dynamics at this level. This meta-
meta-mandelbrot set is constructed from the octonions instead of the quaternions.
Omar Aam is the first person to create pictures of octonion fractals and display
them. He notes that at this level the fractal patterning becomes gaseous -- so subtle
as to be almost non-existent which he has described as a liquid crystal.
The mirroring back and forth of Society and the Mind are captured very nicely by
Aam’s concept of the magical mirrorhouse. I have previously talked about what
Aam calls the mirrorhouse in terms of the endless generation of illusion by the
ideational mechanism. The different kinds of Being lay bare the inner workings of
the ideational mechanism. And now we discover that the parts of that mechanism
are the different special systems. Once the illusory continuity of Pure Presence is
established then upon that surface myriad illusions are projected by the mechanism
of ideation. Those illusions are like the reflections off the walls of the labyrinth of a
funhouse of mirrors. The structure of the mirrors themselves in the funhouse may
be called the mirrorhouse. They are the myriad distractions which in Arabic are
called Dunya. Dunya is the opposite of Ard or Earth. Ard is what you own and what
1045
you need to consume personally. Dunya is everything beyond your needs and what
you can actually have in the world. The myriad illusions of Dunya have an excellent
illustration in the myriad gods, goddesses, demons, cultic shrines and other
religious aspects of Hinduism. A similar observation might be made concerning the
Greek gods and myths. This overproduction of semiotic meaning which continually
varies against itself and contradicts itself is in sharp contrast with the radical
monotheism of Islam, Zen Buddhism, or Chinese Taosim all of which in their pure
form preclude idolatry of every kind. This haphazard ramification of in multiple
dimensions of images upon images upon images . . . is an excellent model for the
endless illusion that occurs in the mirrorhouse of reflexivity. That illusion is
projected upon the screen of the Void though the illusion of logocentric continuity
generated by ideation. It is the opposite of the system that stands on the groundless
ground of pure presence. Dogmatic monotheistic theology is the opposite of the
myriad systems of polytheism. Dogmatic monotheistic theology projects God as the
Supreme Being whereas polytheism projects myriad gods and goddesses as rival
beings within the illusory divine world of the immortals that appears as part of the
positive fourfold (heaven, earth, mortals, and immortals first enunciated as the
structure of the world by Socrates in the Gorgias and revitalized by the later
Heidegger) in contrast to realm of mortals. The dogmatic theologian (Aquinas,
Augustine) like the dogmatic philosopher (Aristotle, Hegel) wishes to construct a
consistent and coherent system while the polytheist\ontologist like Nietzsche does
not believe any system is ever possible. The dogmatist attempts to construct the
system while the polytheist\ontologist continues to indicate the shadow of the meta-
system that demonstrates the impossibility of ever getting complete closure for any
system. All systems that we bring into the sharp light of the positive fourfold of the
world (the clearing in Being) float on the Abyss of groundlessness, they cover over
or repress all the other possible systems, they have within them inexplicable
paradoxes and opacities, and when set into motion they have chaotic regimes that
are non-intuitive. In other words the negative fourfold haunts every thing presented
within the arena of the positive fourfold. A truly radical approach is that which is
taken by Islam, Zen Buddhism and Taoism which is to ban idolatry at the same time
as destroying the notion that God has Being. Thus Zen destroys the idols like the
Muslims have in the past. Taoism speaks about the Way not any Being. In Zen one
must kill the Buddha on the road if one meets him. In other words, whatever would
de-center ones spiritual experience from oneself is an illusion. Everyone has the
essence of Buddhahood within them. In Islam God is not a being, not even the
Supreme Being, but is a unity beyond the void, beyond our comprehension in all
forms yet not transcendent. God is both connected and disconnected to creation at
1046
the same time without contradiction. All three of these examples of religions
propose a supra-rational comprehension of the inner dimension (reality) of
existence. They go beyond both systematic dogmaticism which posits a Supreme
Being or One Being and meta-systematic polytheism/ontologism. The truly radical
alternative is an anti-epistemology AND going beyond Arcady Plotnitsky’s
formulation an anti-ontology. This is why we posit the void or emptiness along with
the Buddhists and the Taoists. It is a realization of utter ignorance which has
resonances in the radical monotheism of Islam. Unlike in Christianity God is no
father and no being, not even a Supreme Being, in Islam. Islam is closer akin to
Judaism in that regard. The point is that the dogmatist who wishes to produce a
system assumes that the mirrors of the mirrorhouse have no flaws, no distortions, so
our representations may correspond to the states of affairs in the world. The
polytheist/ontologist assumes that those mirrors within the mirrorhouse are full of
distortions. The mirrors face each other so that images reverberate to infinity. They
may be at odd angles with respect to each other so that the reflections are distorted.
So both Heidegger who believes in Ontological Monism and Henry who following
Meister Eckhart posits a Cloud of Unknowing, or an ontological dualism have
flawed visions of the world. We have followed the reasoning introduced by Henry
to discover at least four meta-levels of Being. But whether the multiple meta-levels
are four, five or infinite is less important than the difference between a monism and
a poly-ontology. One posits a system in which transcendence can ground itself
through the use of two meta-levels of Being to form an Escher waterfall structure by
which Being can wrap around itself to make the Eternal return of the Same occur.
Prior systems attempted to produce axiom like foundations for philosophy, called
First Principles. Heidegger used Husserl’s discovery of the modes of Being
(apparent in Essence Perception) to allow exactly what Kant had forbidden
philosophy -- access to the transcendental realm. The poly-ontological view posits
that there are even higher meta-levels of Being at which there are aspects of the
world beyond manifestation. Merleau-Ponty discovers two further levels beyond
those Heidegger uses in his self-grounding philosophy expressed in BEING &
TIME. But which ever of these positions one takes there is the discovery that the
non-concept/non-experience of the Void(emptiness) annihilates both system and
meta-systems.
The whole ideational mechanism is dismantled by the ultimate paradox of an

empty emptiness that negates the concept of the full fullness of Being in all its
kinds. What lies beyond the Void is inaccessible and incomprehensible. We are
denied access no matter what we do or no matter how clever we try to be at
1047
reconstructing what lies beyond the blocked door of the unseen, unheard of, and
incomprehensible. Dogmatic system builders that assume a unified Being,
Ontological Monists that assume that transcendence can ground itself by playing
two kinds of Being off each other, and Poly-ontologists of all sorts that assume
Ontological Dualism and even more kinds of Being are all wrong. Being itself is an
illusion and what is worth knowing cannot be captured in that illusion and its
attempts to ground itself. So the mirrors and the images ramifying in the mirrors of
the magical mirrorhouse are both illusions and it is only the tincture of emptiness
that can cure this miasma of our worldview.
As Onar pointed out to me in a private correspondence it is Goertzel’s Magicians

that live within this illusory house. So the house is magical and so are its
inhabitants. There are three dynamics. There is the dynamism of the Magicians that
make up the field of the meta-system. There is the dynamism of the dialectic that
allows the system to evolve within the play of the meta-system. And there is the
dynamism of the gestalt of the system itself. When that system is seen as structural
and as containing both undecidable and indeterminate aspects then all three of these
dynamics embody the four different kinds of Being. A final dynamism to add to
these four is the languaging of language that occurs at the domain level. The four
different kinds of Being establish the handedness (present-at-hand, ready-to-hand,
in-hand & out-of-hand) that language is founded upon -- the undercurrent of signing
gesture and gesticulation. Language establishes the meta-meta-level of the domain
within the compass of the world. All the arguments about meta-levels of Being are
repeated again at this new level. But language adds a new dynamic on top of the
dynamic of manifestation itself. So there are actually four dynamics:
o Languaging of Language within the Domain (texts and speaking)
o Magicians within the field of the Meta-system
o Dialectical evolution of the System within the meta-system
o Dynamics of the Structural System itself.
These four together make up the inner structure of the worlding of the world. The
magical mirrorhouse is alive with activity from these different species of dynamical
entities. Language is the medium of exchange between the images of the illusion.
The illusion is itself illusory just as emptiness is empty. In fact it is the illusory
nature of the illusion that makes it the Same as the emptiness. So the illusions tell
stories of other illusions which in turn tell stories in a tale like the Mahabharata or A
Thousand and one Nights. The thing that makes the mirrorhouse magical is this
meta-illusory nature it has. We cannot tell which is the tale and which is the teller.
1048
When we get caught up in it we become utterly lost. So it is necessary to keep

reverting our attention from the scenes within scenes of the intertwining stories
within stories to the mechanism by which this illusion is created. When we do that
we are brought back to the four different meta-levels of Being and the unfolding
from the Meta-system to the system through the states of the special systems. It is
that system that is annihilated by the tincture of emptiness. When the mechanism
that produces the illusions disappears then the illusions themselves disappear. But
finding the core of the ideational mechanism within the funhouse is very difficult as
it is fragmented and scattered in the reverberating images within images. We need
the help of all our humanistic sciences (structuralism, hermeneutics, dialectics &
phenomenology) plus the counter-distancing of heuristic research in order to locate
that core and dismantle it. It is only by asking the meta-question: “How do new
things come into existence?” that it is possible to break the fascination of the movie
of illusions. We ask not only how new things come into existence within the
panoply of the generated illusions but how does the illusion mechanism that we call
manifestation come into existence? And finally we ask how the possibility of asking
the question of the manifestation of manifestation comes into existence? Asking
questions like this within the magical mirrorhouse allows us to locate and recognize
its core -- the illusion generating mechanism itself. That illusion generating
mechanism is no different from the house itself because when it stops then the
house vanishes. It is like the house of Baal. According to Ugritic myth when the
master craftsman god built a house for Baal he asked if Ball wanted a window. Baal
(Zeus) said no. But later the Master Craftsman asked again and Baal agreed.
Immediately the Window was installed and Death (Mot) came through it to wrestle
with and bind Baal. The house without windows and doors is no house. But in the
case of the mirrorhouse it is precisely the mirrors and doors that introduced
distortions into its structure. We can construct images of the mirrorhouse in
language as have Analytical Philosophy and Deconstructionism. But opening up the
mirrorhouse to what is beyond it destroys it. We discover that the mirrors are
illusory images themselves. The mirrorhouse is a palimpsest of images on images,
words on words and nothing more. It is not set over against emptiness, it is the same
as emptiness. The mirrors and the images in those mirrors are the Same, eternally
recurring and reverberating like the echoes of the Big Bang.
Let us focus in further on the actual structure of the mirror of the magical
mirrorhouse and its non-dual relation to the image in the mirror. It is important to
realize that the mirror is in fact a palimpsest, that is it is made up only of images and
that there is no difference between the images and the glass of these magical
1049
mirrors. In fact we might relate the magical mirrorhouse to what we have called the
MATRIX of spacetime in earlier studies On The Social Construction Of Emergent
Worlds. Igvar Johannson calls the Matrix of Spacetime/Timespace his fundamental
category. But that Matrix is merely the externalization of the social ecstasy of the
group we see in the magical mirrorhouse as the foundation for the world via
intersubjective non-dual reflection. David Loy in Non-duality “bites the bullet” and
declares there is no external world in a non-dual world. Spacetime is the sine quo
non of pure externality. But we must recognize that the Spacetime/Timespace
matrix is merely the dual of the magical mirrorhouse which is the upwelling of the
social logos. In fact, the upwelling of spacetime is the physus dual of that social
logos. In our non-dual theory these two become indistinguishable. Loy’s biting the
bullet and denying externality beyond the phenomenal is an attempt to become
decidable and distinguishable. When we push toward that kind of determination
then we will fall into one side of the duality between socially constructed physus
and socially constructed logos. But becoming rigorously determinate itself is
problematical. If we fall back from the absolutism of that rigor we find that the
upwelling of the social logos seen in the mirrorhouse as language is merely the dual
of the unfolding of the social physus of spacetime where everything is some kind of
warpage in spacetime. In one case we are talking about pure social internality and in
the other we are talking about pure social externality. But when we relax back from
this position of rigor then we realize that the mirrorhouse is spacetime and vice
versa (where the IS is crossed out). In fact the magical mirrorhouse is what
Heidegger calls the House Of Language. Language alone possesses the ability to
become purely self-descriptive. This essential reflexivity that Heidegger points to
when he talks about “Language Languaging” is what unfolds as the special kind of
reflectiveness of that occurs at the level of reflexivity. What is magical about the
mirror house is that it is an illusion sustaining an illusion. It is a language describing
itself. The important point here about language is that it alone has the capacity to
sustain communication from beyond the void. It is that foundation on radical
emergence that gives language its power. As Eric Gans (Originary Thought) says
there was the event of the emergence of language which defines us as human
beings. That event is founded on the handedness of the levels of Being. Gans
describes language arising in the move from grasping to pointing. But in effect
there must have been a cascade of emergences that were all related within a field of
associated originary events. Spoken language must have been only the culmination
of these based on the prior emergence of different gestural languages which never
quite could attain perfect reflection that can occur in language. When I say
something as G.H. Mead says I hear it essentially the same as everyone else who is
1050
listening. Thus there is the possibility of perfect reflexion which would allow a
vanishing of language into the unconscious. And indeed we are largely unconscious
of the role of language in our lives. Language speaks though us and we seldom
listen to what it has to say beneath the din of our talk and chatter. So language
emerged only to vanish immediately. We experience it as an ordering from nowhere
of our inner and outer discourse. Logocentrism is split between thought and social
chatter and discourse. We see the talk (inside and outside) but we do not see from
where this ordering of our talk arises. Thus there is one big dissipative system of
our collective and individual consciousness by languaging. The nowhere out of
which this ordering appears is the void and the ordering (nomos) that appears in
both inner and outer logos is a message of the deep ordering from beyond the void.
The possibility of the perfect reflectivity of language (perfect self-description)
allow this interface with the void to be explicitly defined. In the universe of
handedness (animality, cf Derrida On Spirit) this perfect reflexivity is not possible.
Thus we see the breakdown of the commutative and associative properties as the
special systems unfold from annihilation. There is in fact an interval between
annihilation within the physus and the cancellation within the logos. That interval is
associated with the arising of thresholds of complexity associated with the octonion
and quaternion numbers. If we posit that the real number line is the hallmark of the
coordination within the Matrix of spacetime, then with the complex numbers comes
conjunction that blocks annihilation of different kinds of numbers. But that
pervasive annihilation of different kinds of numbers fragments our descriptions of
timespace. The first hint of that is the minus sign between time and the xyz axes in
spacetime. Basically when we break the four-dimensional unity up into space and
time we get that fragmentation that expresses itself in the chiasma between
Spacetime and Timespace. So the complex numbers fragment the continuum. This
fragmentation continues as we move from one algebra to the next. Complex
numbers have the same properties as real numbers so we accept them and accept the
radical discontinuity they represent in order to use them to solve real problems. But
as we move up the ladder of algebras and relax properties (commutative and
associative) we finally get to the endpoint where any further relaxation of properties
would leave us with no algebra. What exists beyond that point is the meta-system
beyond the special systems in which duality of complementarity becomes the most
conspicuous characteristic. Out of that duality comes the perfect reflectivity of
language which is able to describe itself at the next meta-level up from the meta-
system (i.e. at the domain level). In that perfect self-description we reach the
magical mirroring of the mirrorhouse of language. We have also gone to the
opposite extreme of logos as opposed to physus of the Matrix of spacetime/
1051
timespace. Language arises straight out of the dual complementarities of the meta-
system but encompasses the system and special systems as well to create a higher
level organization called the meta-meta-system or domain. The domain stands
between the meta-system and the world as a point of perfect balance but in which
there is constant emergence of grammar. Language describes language but the
grammar of the language is constantly unfolding out of nowhere, out of the void. As
human beings we are organized to constantly face that interface with the void that
language defines. As Gans says we become human by witnessing and constantly re-
enacting the originary event of language coming into being. The first word is the
name of God. From that all the myriad names of things unfold. From that too come
our initial epistemological categories and ontological referents (kinds of Being) that
support the world. Epistemology and Ontology are intertwined and cannot be
separated at the point of arising. That origin even though as Gans hypothesizes is a
single unique event in human history is always already lost to each of us who were
not there. We are always displaced from the source of revelation unless we are the
ones being revealed to by the deep unity beyond the void. Language is the
instrument of that revelation for only it has perfect self-descriptiveness and perfect
intersubjective perception which embodies the complementary dualities of the
meta-system. But by embodying those complementarities we are raised by the
emergence of language up to an new meta-meta-level or domain. Language in its
perfect balancing is like the symbiosis of the autopoietic system at the next higher
level of abstraction. Similarly the heterodynamics of the reflexive system is like the
Worlding of the World which is not balanced but always out of balance and
ecstatic. From out of the perfect self-description and perfect self-reflection within
the social group that language entails come upwelling in thought and external
speech of the world. The world is an encompassing dynamism that is supported by
the different kinds of Being in relation to our animality (handedness). The world is
articulated in speech as a repercussion from the first word that named God (i.e. the
deep unity beyond the Void). But we need to recognize that language is like the
closed perfection of the autopoietic system which unfolds heterodynamically to
embody the complementary dualities of the meta-system. The world on the other
hand is like the heterodymanical reflexive system but enunciated though speech.
The handedness (animality) is the basis of the worlding of the world (the kinds of
Being) are the basis of the unfolding of the world but enabled through speech. The
Languaging of language embodies the complementary duality hidden in the meta-
system. It is visible because of the continual emergence of grammars but it is
invisible due to the symmetry of the enunciated word for the listeners. This
produces the split between what Sussarie called Langue and Parole. The source of
1052
revelatory language that gives us words from beyond the void nevertheless gives us
events that occur within the world at a particular place. This is the larger Koan that
we must comprehend in a supra-rational kind of understanding. The void is not out
there beyond the world somewhere. The void is within the world so that articulation
of meanings that pour in from the void arise within the world and everything is
empty like the geode that exists within the world. The emptiness of things that
allow meanings to unfold within the world is our own projection. The languaging of
language within the worlding of the world is the infolding/unfolding of this
projection of ourselves onto ourselves as we realize the twist of fate that renders
what is outside us our insides and vice versa. This is not the same as Heidegger’s
ontological monism. It is articulated through the unfolding of the meta-levels of
Being and the realization of Language and speaking on the basis of gestural
language of handedness and of the ecstasy within language that allows the positive
and negative fourfolds that ground the worlding of the world to be self-constituted
and mutually arise dependently with that intermirroring that Heidegger speaks of so
eloquently. Language arises out of the complementary dualities of the meta-system
and may be seen as a symbiotic balancing of these dualities similar to the
homeostasis of autopoietic systems but at a higher meta-meta-level. Similarly the
mirroring within the positive fourfold that arises as a dual of the negative fourfold
that composes the world is based on the reflection in the mirroring of the reflexive
system but again at a meta-meta-meta-level where the order of the world is
constituted. World encompasses the matrix of spacetime/timespace and the
mirrorhouse that gives us access to language as the embodiment of pure
complementarity. The duality between logos and physus is resolved within the
world that encompasses both ends of the unfolding series of special systems. The
mirroring of the positive fourfold occurs in language between heaven, earth,
mortals and immortals. Mortals and immortals speak through the signs and oracles.
Heaven (nowhere) and Earth (the field of somewhere) speak though the dissipation
of order. Mortals and Heaven speak by the language that emerges from the void.
Immortals and Heaven speak in terms of pure nomos beyond the duality of physus
and logos. Immortals and Earth speak in terms of the autopoietic ring which
encompasses Aphrodite and the Cathotic spirits (furies) that are unleashed with the
closure of the autopoietic system is broken. Mortals and Earth speak the language
of mutual dependence and ecological understanding. All these kinds of speech
appear within the mirrorhouse of reflexivity that bind the portions of the positive
fourfold together. Language is the mirroring between the different aspects of the
fourfold. Sometimes that speech is full of light and enables us to see the bright
clearing of Being that arises between the mirrorings of the positive fourfold. But
1053
other times that mirroring is dark and instead we perceive the normally hidden
aspects of the negative fourfold. That darkness flows from the symmetry of
language that is the basis for the asymmetry of speech within which we see the
highlights of the clearing in Being. In language the asymmetry and symmetry are
joined. In Wild Being it was continuity and discontinuity that became mixed but in
language it is asymmetry and symmetry that become complementary pairs of
opposites that are non-dually joined in a single formation that is the medium for the
mirroring within the world. In the world it is the physus/logos duality that become
joined in a single encompassing. In that greater non-duality we see pure Nomos
itself that the Chinese called Li. One principle (nomos, li); myriad manifestations.
The magical mirrorhouse produces myriad reflections of images of images. The
images are the reflecting surface for other images in a rhizomatic palimpsest. It is
seen as dark, chaotic, covered or abysmal from one viewpoint and as a bright
clearing in Being from another viewpoint. These two views can never be separated.
They are complementary sides of the same “matter” about which our anti-
epistemological and anti-ontological intuitions are continuously being strengthened
as we fail to unravel and comprehend the “matter” over and over again.
7. Timestreams
We have given (in sections 4 & 5) a dialectical unfolding of the Greimas square
which produces the inner logic of the dialectic. From that we spoke in the last
section about Onar Aam’s concept of the magical mirrorhouse. In this section we
will attempt to capture some of the aspects of the exploration of the structure of the
special systems that Onar Aam and I have worked out together based on his
knowledge of the working of these hypercomplex algebras. My contribution will be
to set these algebraic findings in a more general context. That context will concern a
social theory of time based on the mathematical foundation of these hypercomplex
algebras.
Time runs backward. This is a fundamental insight that Igvar Johannson has had in
his Ontological Investigations. Just like when we put on inverting glasses and after
a while things look right side up again, so to our brains compensate for the fact that
we have to experience time backwards. We must experience it backwards because
otherwise we could not resonate with others producing actions that are
simultaneous with theirs. There is this lag time of perception that would prevent
harmonic resonance from occurring if time went forward. And we know from the
micro-movements that accompany speech that we are continuously resonating with
1054
others as we perform the dance of speech. So resonance is a basic condition of

social conversation. We must add to this the model of internal time consciousness
developed by Husserl and Heidegger. Events are coming in and being layered in
short term memory. But we read that short term memory backwards in order to
grasp that part of it we need to respond to in the next specious present moment. We
are facing our short term memory walking backwards into the future. Our view of
the future is very limited because short term memory is limited. It is said that we
can keep 7+/-2 things in short term memory at one time. Eberhardt Rechtin
(Systems Architecting) made the comment once that those may be 7+/-2 conflicting
things that are held together in short term memory. So even though there are only a
few things that can be held in conjunction at once the situation between them can be
very complex. That complexity of interrelations between conflicting elements
within short term memory may in fact be modeled by the eight streams to nine time
streams of the octonion. The ninth stream is the implicit anti-synthesis. So short
term memory can hold the elements of dialectical unfolding. That is how we
resonate with different people in the social unfolding of situations. Each of us is
looking at our short term memories. But what we see within those short term
memories is the eight to nine independent time streams that we are coordinating our
actions with. We look at those independent time streams and use the octonion
structure to intertransform between them. The strange twists in the octonion and
quaternion structures allow us to twist back to project the results of our grasping
into the future.
The present is not a unified purely present moment as Saint Augustine would have
us believe. Wm James expands that infinitesimal moment of the frozen present to
include some duration calling the extended moment the specious present. It is in the
specious present that a new quantum of experience is placed within short term
memory. But we are not in a unified present with other agents. Each agent may be
in his own time stream. In fact we have seen in previous papers from the Software
Engineering Foundations series (Software Systems Meta-methodology) that Agha’s
Scenario And Worldview minimal methods (mentioned in Actors) shows us the
separate time flows of different agents and relates them to each other. When we
view the present what we must understand is that it is not uniform but is rhizomatic
just as things in space are rhizomatic. This means that not only is our experience of
time different but we are actually within different time flows (worldlines). It is
thorough the octonion and its embedded quaternion and complexnion timeslip
structures that we are able to bridge the gap between different time flows that
disconnect us as agents within the matrix of spacetime.
1055
Each agent’s short term memory is like a FILO (first in last out) queue. As a
quantum of experience comes in as a borne specious present it is pushed on this
stack. The point is that the stack may contain up to nine quanta that are all in
conflict. All the elements in the stack are like parallel processing timestreams.
When I look across the stack I can see each of the timestreams developing over
time. Given Husserl’s model of internal time consciousness each of the quanta
begin to fade slowly as it is overlaid with the experiences in the succeeding
specious present quanta. But by attention being focused back to some locus of
experience a stream might be renewed or updated. Thus in a serial fashion we might
see all the streams in the short term memory being refreshed and maintained over
time. The short term memory is not a stack then, but a matrix in which a locus of
experience is maintained by being refreshed or repeated allowing it to evolve and be
monitored by looking at snapshots over time.
Figure 188:
r i j k I J K E -E
* *=refresh of contents of timestreams in
* the short term memory
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Because the refresh rate is much faster than the short term memory lapse rate time
streams may be maintained almost indefinitely within short term memory. It is
these evolving timestreams that short term memory holds together in conjunction
even if they are in conflict in order to piece together a response to the situation in
which multiple agents are coordinating their activities. We do not need backward
time to react to events. We need backward time to coordinate our resonant actions.
Resonate action is not a response to the other but a doing something complementary
at the same time as the other. Due to processing and communication speeds a
1056
resonant response must be based on timing of ones own actions with the history of
the timing of the actions of the other. One cannot respond to an action of the other
and become resonant. Instead, we must look through the layers of our short term
memory at our capture of the timestream of the other and predict when his next
repetition is going to be and time our reaction to that some point in time. This
means as Igvar Johannson says that we must read our internal time consciousness
records backward and attempt to grasp the significance of those actions and the
timing in order to predict when the next moment of response should be and what
that response should be. Forward reading would allow us to react but not to resonate
with the other and we know that the glue of social relations is resonance particularly
in conversations. It is the resonant dimension that G.H. Mead was missing in his
social theory which attempted to combine the concept of emergence from Biology
of his day taken from Smutts and the theory of Special Relativity. He attempted to
build a behavioral symbolic interactionist theory based on reaction and response but
the emergent field is instead resonant (based on simultaneous coherent actions of
the participants in the social field). We can see this if we look at the micro-
movement studies of babies absorbing language prior to their own ability to speak
or of persons engaged in conversation. High speed photography discerns the
resonating dance of different segments of the body that frame the parts of speech
between the participatans in the conversation. This resonant behavior is even found
in infants that is just in a room with people engaging in speech before the baby can
speak. If we are interacting with multiple people who require different resonant
patterns then we need to keep multiple time streams active for each person or group
we are resonating with. This theory predicts that we can resonate with at most nine
other persons or groups concurrently. Each resonance pattern is maintained in our
refreshed short term memory. We look at these backwards through the layers of
refreshment in order to decide what to do next. Where two resonance patterns
conflict or interfere then we must make a decision which pattern to follow at any
given point in time. That would probably be a conscious decision. But resonance in
general is a built in non-conscious response behavior. Onar Aam calls these
automatic response mechanisms or habits “mimikers” because they mimic what is
happening outside us and automatically regulate our responses. This is related to the
concept of Deleuze and Guattari of the Desiring Machines which we have been
using as our way of talking about these partial objects that jut out from the
unconscious. When we call them mimikers we are looking at them in time whereas
Deleuze and Guattari’s view is basically atemporal. Deleuze and Guattari talk about
connections between desiring machines. But the point is that these connections are
not static. What is actually occurring is that we are resonating with multiple
1057
different timestream inputs simultaneously in order to maintain the connection over

time. That resonant connection occurs only by adapting our pattern of response to
the response of the other via our short term memory and our view of the timing of
what we remember from the immediate past. The idea of mimikers is much more
dynamic. It derives from Onar Aam’s analysis of Dawkin’s concept of the meme as
the quanta of cultural transmission. This would say that the concept of the specious
present of Wm James is articulated so that all of our social experience were broken
up into quanta that we transmitted between each other in the form of memes. G.H.
Mead would merely call this symbolic interaction and the meme a symbol
composed of signs. (Memes are the equivalent of genes on an ideational level. It is
not clear that the concept of Meme per se is of any worth. It is introduced here only
because it is the origin of Onar Aam’s concept of mimickers derrived from Dawkins
The Selfish Gene.) Even though we may not accept the concept of memes as such it
is possible to look across the social field and see that every individual within the
social fabric are experiencing quanta of integrated experiences that are
communicated from person to person. These quanta are reciprocated in a resonant
network of individuals. Within the individual there are Desiring Machines (thinking
them spatially) or Mimikers (thinking them temporally) that are resonating with
different external sources at the same time in an elaborate dance. In that dance we
are trading back and forth quanta of experience be those natural complexes of
actions, symbolic gestures or what ever. These patternings are accepted and
responded to by the behavioral subcomplexes or fragments of the individual.
As noted above the resonant behavioral subcomplexes (Desiring Machines or

Mimikers) are organized out of nowhere by the Social, that is by the entire array of
generalized others of the individual to which he has to respond. The individual
attempts to appear as a coherent unity to others (i.e. as having a mind) as a nowhere
that organizes its action within the social field. The self is the interface between
these two dissipative special systems within the individual. What we note is that the
Desiring Machines or Mimikers are particle like subcomplexes of behavior that
allow the individual to resonate with disparate external timestreams. The socius is a
wave like field of the resonant actions of different individuals. So if we see the dual
dissipative special systems as configured so one deals with particles and the other
with waves then we get an interesting picture of what happens when the dissipative
systems form an autopoietic special system. In other words they are doing the
transformation between the complementary ways of looking at the relations
between eventities. We have already noted that this transformation is between N^2
and 2^N. So we get a scenario of this kind. Within short term memory there is at the
1058
same time both particle like nexus of experience and wave like qualities associated
with them. There are maximally 81 different relations between these particle like
nexes. But when we transform these into qualities we see that there are maximally
512 qualities that these nine nexes of experience (imaginary time streams) can
generate. We note that the maximal number relations corresponds to the number of
operators in the positive and negative aspects of the Matrix Logic of August Stearn.
In a showing and hiding logic such as Matrix Logic what we have hidden is what is
in our short term memory, it is our assessment of what is happening in the multiple
timestreams and what we are going to do next based on the programs of our habit
complexes (mimikers) and our cognitive analysis of the situation. What is presented
can be manipulated by 16 operators of the positive logic. The other operators allow
us to manipulate what is hidden within our manipulable interior (the short term
memory).
When we look at this situation from the outside what we see are the other
individuals as eventities in the social field (socius) surrounded by a cloud of
qualities. In other words the social field outwardly appears as qualities. We are
resonating with these other eventities at the level of Mimikers or Desiring Machines
but appearing to be coherent unities by projecting on the social field an appropriate
set of qualities. The social field in turn is appearing as a generalized other or Society
that is orchestrated in order to present a coherent unity to our experience and thus
create the right patterns of responses in the Mimikers (Desiring Machines). So there
is a double feedforward and feedback loop established which forms an autopoietic
closed ring. But that double loop is transforming between a quality and quantity
view within both fields (mimikers and socius). There are two abstracted non-entities
or no-things called society and mind that are organizing and transforming between
these two fields in a chiasmic manner. And the interference pattern between these
two chiasmic dissipative systems locked together in a symbiotic resonating relation
is the Self.
I like the name chatterers instead of mimickers -- because it describes what we

really experience better with is a chattering of insignificant trivia in our heads. The
tapes from David Grove on Healing the Child Within are very revealing in this
respect and he says some very interesting things from his experience healing the
psychosomatic remains of trauma. I think what he is calling the child within is what
we have variously called:
Figure 189:
Desiring Machines (following Deleuze and Guattari)
1059
Mimickers
Chatterers
Partial-Selves
Children-within
If he only said healing the children within. He says that when we have a traumatic
experience our self splits and part of it stays locked into a cycle prior to the trauma.
What we need to do to heal ourselves from trauma is to guide that stuck part of
ourself past the trauma; then that stuck part becomes a healing resource within the
psyche of the patient. His hypnotherapy is the most sophisticated. What is
particularly interesting about it is that it is not voyeuristic. The therapist never needs
to know what the patient is experiencing or what the trauma was but he can still act
as a healing catalyst. He says that during a therapy session of an hour the child-
within may only be present for a few moments and you have to work hard to keep
from the adult answering your questions -- you must keep your questions on the
level of the child and talk VERY slowly. In fact he says that the child within “lives”
between the words and so the longer the pauses between words the more time you
are giving the child-within to react. He gives lots of examples from real therapy
sessions (recordings) as examples. One of the things he says is that a sign of a stuck
child-within is that it uses the -ing on the end of words to keep something from
happening and to prolong its frozen state that keeps the trauma from occurring. We
posit that Be-ing and Becom-ing are exactly these frozen states of freezing before a
trauma. Becoming is the freez-ing whereas Being is the frozen state. In Be-come-
ing the frozen state of Be-ing is coming. When the trauma occurs the self-
boundaries are lost and the child blanks out and it sees this as death. During this
time external things can get introjected into the self which need to be pushed back
out into the world during the therapy. This is done by transforming metaphors
similar to the transformations that occur in myths. Something negative can become
a tool for healing and transforming and it is the child-within that does this
transformation by actually moving/or transmuting the metaphors. The child-within
has its own wisdom that allows it to know what needs to be done to heal the person
whose self-fragment it is.
Actually the child-within metaphor is probably the best of the different

nomenclatures we have for these self-fragments. Children have as one of their
characteristics to mimic and as another to chatter incessantly as they exercise their
language capacity. As suckers of breasts (partial objects) they are in fact the
prototype for Deleuze and Guattari’s desiring machines. But we know what
1060
children are and we were all a child at one time so we know what it feels like to be
like a child and to deal with a child. If we borrow Kristeva’s idea of the chora and
think of each of us being composed of a chorus of children -- the Greeks had those
too -- which are self-fragments split off by traumatization as we grow up -- there is
not one trauma but many so that we end up with many self fragments -- which
interact and chatter to each other locking the adult into compulsive cycles and
creating somatic memories that stand in for blocked eidetic memories. I think the
only thing Groves has wrong is that he assumes that we have one unified inner
child. Actually we have an unruly class and each of us as adults are virtual teachers
who are either managing or not managing that class. When the class goes in
multiple directions at once then we have split personalities. When we cannot get the
class to quiet down then we have schizophrenia. I think that perhaps the problem we
have is that we assume that we are dealing with adults when we look at the self-
fragments and what we need to realize is that these self fragments are trapped at the
age of splitting. Someone with multiple traumas or who was over sensitive might
have many many fragments trapped in cycles prior to different traumatic events. I
posit that these children trapped in different pre-trauma magical fending off
routines before self-dissolution episodes can interact with each other and connect
with each other just as D&G describe Desiring Machines doing. Just as in a class
two kids might pass notes or throw spitwads at each other. And in fact they can
form an autopoietic hyper-cyclic ring --- THAT ring is the self. The self is made up
of the children-self-fragments resonating together. Each adult is made up of these
resonating rings of self-fragments trapped at different ages. When two adults get
together in marriage for instance then different of their self fragments will interact
with the self-fragments of the other creating the peculiar chemistry of the marriage.
For each child its knowledge is embedded in its body -- may not be cognitive yet.
So these somatic memories make up the armoring of the body of the adult. It is this
somatic memory armoring that Grove treats -- he treats the most unruly members of
the class that cause frequent disruption of the adult routines. So we can see the
adultness as a supplement to the class that instills order from above. But the class
may also be seen as a meta-system in which the self-fragments interact. When there
is exact balance between the supplement and the lack of the meta-system then we
have an autopoietic resonance in which the class acts as ONE without outside
ordering of the adult teacher and without falling apart into a self-destructed non-
unified field awash with the different children lost in their own fantasy worlds or
obsessional cycles that they cannot break by themselves. We will describe this state
of harmony as playing a game together -- you know those spontaneous games that
children make up when not being supervised that are handed down to class to class
1061
on the playground. So the autopoietic state is equivalent to spontaneous group play.

This play can go in one of two directions: develop a supplement and thus create a
set of power relations between the players as when one child starts making up the
rules ---- or toward a lack. When the lack appears it becomes a closed container
(bubble) that as a minimal system contains the octonion reflection of the quaternion
mirroring. Thus the lack is filled with endless illusion as with fantasy games. The
dissipative system occurs because of the supplement because that is the accursed
share or excess that allows power plays to occur. The reflexive system occurs
because of a lack that forms a hollow bubble (minimal system) within which
infinite mirroring occurs in a trapped space. This is the difference between the
nihilistic opposites Yang Splendor (too bright) and Closed Yin (too dark) [cf The
Stone Monkey. Holbrook]. Yang Splendor is so Yang it appears Yin and Closed
Yin is so Yin that it appears Yang. Thus the dissipative system orders its field with
an overflowing order from nowhere. When we look at the ordering we see Yang but
when we realize that the ordering must come from somewhere then we see the
dissipative system as yin. Similarly the closed tetrahedron that mirrors on the inside
is yin but the endless variety produced is yang. Notice that in one case we know
where the endless variety is coming from (reverberation of trapped light) but in the
other case we do not know where the ordering is coming from. That is why we say
it is from nowhere. The order from nowhere could stop any moment where as the
mirroring is self-sustaining production of variety. In the middle is the autopoietic
ring in which each dissipative system provides the ordering for another in a pair or
in a series that forms a hyper-cycle. This is the balance of mother child symbiosis. It
is broken from two sources. From the side of Yang Splendor by the father who
imposes external order on the mother and child of nothing else by the provision of
resources at particular times. From the side of Closed Yin it comes from the child’s
own realization of mirroring which recognizes itself within the mirror and realizes
the illusion of the illusion. The realization of mirroring and the fundamental
understanding of illusion is fundamentally necessary to understand emptiness/
interpenetration. When we see the dissipative system filling the environment with
order we understand emptiness. When we see the reflexive system folding in on
itself in infinite resonating reflection we understand the meaning of
interpenetration. So these two special systems either side of the balance point of
Hun Tun (autopoietic unity) allow us to recognize the intrinsically dual nature of
emptiness/interpenetration. Between them is the symbiotic dual which is practicing
non-action. It is in non-action because that is homeostatic balance. Every action is
perfectly countered within the hyper-cyclic ring so nothing is happening except a
fine tuning that keeps the balance with an action that keeps movement away from
1062
the balance point from happening.
<BEGIN EXTRACT>
Constructing the Self: from complex to hyper-complex algebra
------------------------------------------------------------
by Onar Aam
I posit that mimickers are homeostatic. That is, they are dissipative, corresponding
to the level of the complexion. Let us now assume that the mimicker can be
modeled as the imaginary number _i_. Alone the mimicker is only a REFLEX (it
may merely produce a recognition or an association). But when many mimickers
are put in CONJUNCTION (i+j+k) they form a regulatory system. Together they
produce annihilation cascades of associations and recognition. BUT alone they are
strongly habitual. Alone they are only able to produce HABITUAL SPEECH.
Besides they lack an agent to present their perceptions to. This is where the self
enters the picture.
We have used the plus-operator to create the conjunction of mimickers operating

together. But the multiplication operator suggests that another structure may be
constructed from i,j,k. This structure is the SELF (corresponding to i*j*k). So the
mimickers (i+j+k) present their associations and recognitions to the Self (ijk). We
may justify this notion with the fact that ijk = -kji. Thus, the loss of commutativity
corresponds to the _consciousness_ of the Self. The commutative asymmetry of the
quaternion renders the habitual speech of the mimickers visible to the self.
We have that (ij)k = i(jk) which means that _ijk_ may be seen as a UNITY. Thus,
we have that the intactness of the associative property corresponds to the
IDENTITY of the Self, i.e. that which makes the Self feels like a unity. _ijk_ is
ONE. Ok, now we have deduced the mimickers in conjunction from plus-operator,
and the existence of the conscious agent, the Self, from the multiplication operator.
But we still have the problem of habitual speech. The mimickers are not able to
produce anything but a flow of habits. Therefore they alone cannot explain the
richness of our thoughts. This is why we have to view the Self as more than a
passive conscious agent. The Self also has the property of FOCUS and
INITIATIVE with which it can BEND the habitual speech of the mimickers
1063
producing non-habitual thought. This too can be described with the quaternion
properties. We may view the flow of habitual speech as CONSTANT FLUX. In
other words, a velocity vector. The self may control this vector in two ways:
FOCUS and INITIATIVE. With focus the Self is able to _scale_ the length of the
speech vector. Thus, focus decides the level of attention, i.e. how visible the
habitual speech will be. The length of the vector then directly corresponds to
visibility/attention. Second, and this is the most important, the vector may be
*rotated* [rotation is an innate property of the quaternion.] This corresponds to
*initiative*.
We may not only choose how much to focus on something but also *what* to focus
on. This completes the properties of the self. Since acceleration (rotation of a
constant flux vector=acceleration) is the last derivative with meaning the Self has
no higher properties. It is interesting to note that all the four properties of the Self
came from the quaternion multiplication. The Self is the CONSCIOUS AGENT of
the mind. This came from the asymmetry of the quaternion multiplication (ij = -ji).
The Self is a UNITY. This came from the associativity intact: (ij)k = i(jk) = ijk. The
Self has the property of FOCUS. This corresponded to linear scaling of the
quaternion (real multiplication. Q = r*Q) Finally, the Self has INITIATIVE which
came from the innate rotational properties of the quaternion multiplication.
Let's summarize the properties of the two conjunctions:
(*) (+)
SELF MIMICKERS
----- ---------
CONSCIOUS PERCEPTUAL MACHINES
UNITYREFLEXIVE RECOGNITION/ASSOCIATION
FOCUS HABITUAL SPEECH
WILL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<END EXTRACT>
Through this short excursus on the Self quoted from correspondence with Onar
Aam we can see how the self as the locus of the coherence of the individual may
appear in relation to the mimikers (Desiring Machines). All that is missing in this
1064
analysis is the fact that all the individuals are producing Selves within the social
field and that field is qualitative as well as qualitative. Selves are social constructs
or mutual reflections within the social field. They all appear to have conscious unity
with focus and will. When we look at a single individual we abstract Mind and
when we look at all the individuals together we abstract society as the locus of
ordering from nowhere. But in actuality it is the field of the short term memory and
the social fabric between individuals that are self-organizing. Both of these fields
are modeled on the quaternions as we have noted the individual appears as a
quaternion within the social field and the nodes within short term memory appear as
quaternions as well so there is a reflectivity between the Mind and Society that
makes them duals. In fact the only real difference is the way the heterarchy is
related to the hierarchy in each. This is only to reiterate that the the individuals are
trapped in the magical mirror house of the octonion level reflexive system and it is
that mirrorhouse that is reproduced within each individual as the organization of the
separate time streams within short term memory.
The octonion organization allows for the dialectical unfolding of new time streams
from old time streams. It has a partially associative structure that allows different
individuals to be the Same and belong together within a braided set of timestreams
that at a lower level have associative properties of the quaternion. Several different
associative rings are produced in the octonion that allow us to posit the first
associative ring ijk over against the dual non-associative IJK. These two are tied
together with an interesting set of six associative rings which posit the E timestream
as the synthesis which brings association to the IJK. This partial associativeness
mediated through E allows the production of an internal dual to the Greimas square
that is the key to its unraveling. The annihilation of the elements of the EIJK
internal square produces the associative sub-rings. We can picture this unfolding of
the nine separate time streams with the following figure that pictures the relations
between them through the associative rings.
Figure 190:
_____________
| | | kKE | The two similar elements
________________ | are mediated by E
| | | jJE |
___________________ |
| | | iIE |
__________
| | | kJI |
_____________ | each element can participate in
| | | jKI | the opposite quaternion
_____________ | (i with JK)
1065
| | | iJK |
_______
| | | ijk normal quaternion
Figure 191:
i j k K J I E
i-1 k -j J -K -E I
j-k -1 i I E -K -J
k j -i -1 E -I J -K
K-J -I -E -1 i j k
J K -E I -i -1 -k j
I E K -J -j k -1 -i
E-I J K -k -j i -1
Figure 192:
implicit at next dialectical level /------ -E
-
/-------- E
/ &
/------- I ----*--*-----------I / --------- I
/ % | | | / &
/ /------ J -*--*------------J |/ --------- J
/ / % | | | | E &
/ / /----- K -*-----*-------K |/| --------- K
/ / / | | | | E |
/--- i -------------- i -*------------ |/| i --------- j
/ | / / | | E |
-1 ----- j -------------- j -------*------ | j --------- i
| \ | / | |
| \--- k -------------- k ----*--------- k --------- k
|
|----- -1 ------------- -1 -------------------------------- -1
|
|
|
1---------------------------------------------------------- 1
i|j|k vertical bars show association
J|K|i
I|J|k
I|K|j
K|E|k
J|E|j
I|E|I
I%J%K not associated!
(E&I)&J&K or E&(I&J)&K semi-associatied!
The six commutative rings other than the initial ijk ring are:
Figure 193:
i j k I J K
/b\ /d\ /f\ /a\ /c\ /e\
K---J I---K J---I E---i j---E k---E
We might relate these along with ijk to the seven chakras of traditional
1066
Hindu mythology.
These produce 64 representations of the octonion by reversing polarity of
these associative rings.
Figure 194:
i j k E I J K
---------------------- This table courtesy
. . . . . . . . of Onar Aam.
. . . . a -a b -b
. . . . c d -c -d
. . . . e f -f -e
. -a -c -e . a c e
. a -d -f -a . f d
. -b c f -c -f . b
. b d e -e -d -b .
The variables a,b,c,d,e,f may have one of two values: plus or minus.
Onar Aam has discovered that the sixty four representations of the octonion that
occur when you permute the plus and minus signs contains implicit mobius strips
woven together. This suggests that between the representations of the octonion and
its internal structure there are non-dual relations that bind together the
representations into a coherent tapestry. The octonion must be represented by one of
its 64 representations in order for the inner structure to be studied. Mathematicians
tend to ignore representations when they study a kind of mathematical object. But
in the case of the octonion the relation between the appearance of representations
and the core structure of the octonion cannot be separated easily.
This undecidability in the representation of the octonion leads to the movement of

the partial non-associative properties within the cube of the octonion under different
representations. Onar Aam has characterized this as a Liquid Crystalline structure
that is partially crystalline but partially open to change. This is the intersection of
the different chiasmic reversibilities within the cube of dialectical unfolding. That
undecidability projects sixty four possible states of the social field. We have already
seen that the substructure of the social filed is connected to the hextahedron of five
dimensional space that also projects 64 possible states on the social field. Now we
find another confirmation that the I Ching is indeed a description of the social fields
intrinsic structure. Here we find that because the representations of the octonion
have an intrinsic decidability. This organizes the cloud of qualities that surround the
individuals in the social field and it organizes the qualities that define the
interpretations of experiential nexes within short term memory that is the internal
representation of the external social field that allows us to resonate with that field.
By Ashby’s law of requisite variety the internal model needs to be as complex as
1067
the external environment demands. In this case the external environment demands
resonance and that causes us to model timestreams of others. We do that based on
the dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special systems and their connection to the
complex and hypercomplex algebras. The mathematical objects give us a bridge
between the unfolding inside (logos) and the unfolding outside (the physus) and so
are an embodiment of Nomos or law.
The unfolding of the timestreams allows us to track the resonant patterns of

multiple others and respond in kind. They allow us to dialectically generate new
timestreams from multiple old streams. But because they operate on the principle of
annihilation in which associative rings generate each other as members it also
builds this emergent evolution on the basis of annihilation loops so that the structure
allows for the destruction of the self in the very moment of transcending the self.
Unfolding of the associative rings and the semi-associative loops that result from
structure. IJK are not associative without E. Square leads by annihilation to six
associative rings.
Figure 195:
(EI)
(JE) I
/| i
/ | / \
K--j K---J
. .
. .
I E-----I E
/ | |. .| | \
(KE)k |. . . | . | . . .| k (IJ)
\ | |. .| | /
J K-----J K
. .
. .
E--j E---I
\ | \ /
(KI) \| i
(JK)
[In parenthesis is shown which pairs of imaginary numbers are annihilated by

multiplication. Diagram courtesy of Onar Aam.]
1068
Figure 196:
J E------I
/ \ | |
/ \ == | |
/ E \ | |
I------- K K------J
not assoc
without E
IJK is not associative without E. Annihilations of any elements of this square

produce the six associative triangles. It is as if the E or synthesis appears in the
midst of the non-Associative elements making them semi-associative and by
annihilation producing the substructure of the six other associative rings other than
ijk. So ijk is the primary associative ring which gives rise through the other
associative ring to a non-associative image of itself and an element that contains the
associativeness as a separate entity. When this associative element is added then the
IJK becomes semi-associative.
It is an anti-Greimas square. The original Greimas square only annihilated

contradictions across the square. This square will annihilate in any direction and
thus unravel. What we have here is a structure that is meta-unstable -- i.e. it can
annihilate in every direction unlike the Greimas square where two annihilations
block each other.
Figure 197:
> i E--I
> R + / \ + | |
> k---j K--J
/--------j J
R + i + | + I + E
\--------k K
0 1 2 3 4
---------
5
i jk
.................................
i JK
j IK
k IJ
i I E
j J E
k K E
1069
0 illusory continuity
1 breaks up into singularity that allows annihilation
2 ijk arises as annihilation with side effects
3 IJK arises as non-associative elements
4 E arises as associative counter element
5 EIJK
6 there are ties between iJK, IjK, and IJk
7 there are ties between iEI, jEJ, and kEK
This structure confirms my suspicion that what the octonion gives us is an

unraveling of the Greimas square. It does so by creating a second inner square that
can annihilate in any direction which is unblocked. But the unblocking is in a semi-
associative mode.
When the book of the Greimas square opens it produces the inverse of the
associative ijk in the appearance of the IJK. But then out of the middle of the IJK
which is non-associative it produces E which is an associative catalyst. That renders
the whole structure semi-associative and produces an inverse Greimas square that
does not block in higher dimensions. The square unblocks and annihilates
producing sub-annihilation rings that produce side-effects. So in the very moment
in which annihilation occurs you get the dialectical production of the synthesis (and
implicit anti-thesis). The implicit anti-thesis is hidden behind the original
associative ring (ijk).
I think we have gone the long way around to prove that dialectical synthesis
production is annihilative destruction. EIJK has meta-unstablity. Note that the side
effects from the annihilation at the Reflective level are annihilation loops at the
quaternion level which in turn produce separate i,j, or k at the complexnion level.
EIJK is a meta-unstable projection of the Greimas square that is self-blocking.

What can be said about knots in the fourth dimension? They are virtually unknotted.
This is the mechanism for virtually unknotting knots in the third dimension. By
unknotting them in the fourth (hypercube) or seventh (octogon) dimension.
This is a list of the things that the octonion structure is doing simultaneously:
o Unknotting the blocked Greimas square.

o Establishing interdependence of non-associative and
associative images (i.e. ijk and IJK).
1070
o Allowing for 64 different representations of the non-

associative aspect of the octonion.
o Creating six associative rings out of one.
o There are six associative rings produced and six points of
undecidability that generate the 64 representations.
o It creates a complex interference pattern between simultaneous
chiasma.
o It posits implicitly the anti-synthesis hidden by the first
associative ring.
o Because different people can look in from different viewpoints
on different representations it creates an indistinctness
as well as the undecidability for a single viewer.
o It brings us up against emptiness (void) because the higher
algebras involve total annihilation instead of being
continuously intertransformational.
o It embodies the magical mirrorhouse of the social by producing
a metaphor for Sameness (belonging together).
o Models interpenetration.
Of these different simultaneous interpretations the modeling of interpenetration is

the most interesting. Here we can think of the associative ring as the perfect model
of interpenetration. Each part is a whole constructed of the other two parts within
the ring. So all together the differences between i, j & k exist by their mutual
participation in each other. k is only ij where ji is -k. So it goes for all the other
members. Each is a whole made up of the others as parts. So they perfectly
interpenetrate and form the simplest possible autopoietic ring. That ring can be
interpreted as an annihilation mosaic in which all elements are side effects produced
by the annihilation of the other members of the ring. The wholes are all
autopoieticly closed in that it is impossible to take apart any of these wholes except
in complete parts that are themselves closed wholes. This creates an interesting
relation between closure and differentiation. The i, j, & k are all different
diacritically by their relation to each other but they are also all closed unities that we
cannot see inside of except to the extent we get other wholes that are closed by
reversing the annihilation process. When two dissipative systems combine an
asymmetry is created in which three of the elements form an associative ring while
the other becomes the dissipative field for the whole ring. In this way the singularity
i unfolds into the ijk associative ring. Instead of being just a singular point with no
differentiation it unfolds into an autopoietic ring with differentiation while
maintaining closure. The i, j, & k are atomic units of this ring that we cannot see
into or differentiate. All other autopoietic rings such as the fivefold HSING are
based on this structure minimally displayed by the associative ring. As shown in the
1071
study of Aphrodite and her five embodiments carried out in THE

FRAGMENTATION OF BEING AND THE PATH BEYOND THE VOID we see
that each face of the ring is manifest separately and the ring itself cannot be broken
into. This is due to the fact that each whole face is the result of the annihilation of
two of the other faces so only one face stands at any one time. In order to get
continuous annihilation as a cycle one needs two such rings that are producing
complementary opposites. Once cycle needs to produce pairs while the other needs
to destroy pairs. If the two cycles are balanced then one gets a continuous hyper-
cycle of appearing and disappearing elements. When you add the positive and
negative characteristic of the elements then one gets the twisting of that is
characteristic of the quaternion. Extending this twist to fields other than three is
called a Clifford Algebra. It is an extension of the quaternion algebra. A similar
extension at the level of the octonion is called the Cayley non-associative algebra.
We can look at the octonion as the inner structure of the quaternion associative
triangle revealed. The octonion unfolds out of the quaternion showing an even
higher order model of the inner structure of the singularity. Within the octonion
there is a mirroring of the original quaternion in six new images which have
complex interrelations. There appear the ei = I, ej = J, & ek = K new imaginary
elements that are completely unassociative. To these are added the synthesizing E
imaginary which lends partial associativity to the square EIJK. So associativeness
of the ijk is broken apart in the manifestation of the IJK and E becomes a catalyst
that allows partial associativity. This partial associativeness produces a very
interesting structure because with the octonion arises the ability to choose a
representation and that choice changes where the asymmetry within the octonion
lies. Between the different possible representations there are Mobius like relations
in which contradictions are produced by the braiding of these contradictory
relations there exists many different non-dual structures that connect the
appearances of the octonion together into a twisting tapestry of great complexity.
The IJK can be seen as the internal difference between the elements of the ijk ring.
The E can be seen as the inner core of associativeness. The E unites with the IJK to
give partial associativeness back. So we see that what is whole and unified under
the ijk ring is separated and disunified as E and IJK. Placing E with IJK partially
reunites that unity but cannot completely restore it. The mirroring of the
associativeness in all six associative rings creates a magical reflective structure.
That structure is a perfect model for interpenetration if we remember that each of
those images contain the whole of the network of associative rings within
1072
themselves. Each ring can unfold into an octonion and beyond the octonion into the
higher order non-associative algebras. We are looking at an infinitely deep web of
nodes in ever more complex interpenetrated structures. When the unity of the
associative ring is broken then what we get is a complex mirroring that allows for a
picture of transcendence by the production of the E synthesis. But the structure
returns upon itself dialectically so that there is a constant production of
transcendence in the very act of annihilation. And this demonstration of emptiness
is simultaneously a model of interpenertration of Indra’s net of associative jewels
caught in a complex mirroring of the octonion with its differentiation between
appearance (representation) and core structures. Each associative ring is a closed
autopoietic unity that none the less unfolds into a complex chakra like structure in
which different associative rings are related to each other via non-dual
reversibilities. This image of interpenetration (which is at the same time an image
of annihilation cascades and dialectical advance) is the culmination of years of
attempting to understand the cognitive picture of interpenetration as it arises from
Buddhist philosophy. Now there is a complex but interestingly structured model for
this mirroring that produces the network as a reflection of one of its nodes back onto
itself. Each node is a separate isolated unit and a reflection back on itself of the
whole network of quaternions. The reflection allows us to see how the internal
structure of the autopoietic system is the same as the external relations between
different autopoietic systems. The inside _is_ (crossed out) the outside and vice
versa. The essence of the social is interpenetration, is the creative advance of the
dialectic, is the loops of annihilation cascades, and finally is the reflectivity of the
fourfold mirroring that Heidegger speaks of by which the unfolding of the octonion
is produced from the quaternion through the doubling procedure.
A great deal of further exploration of the octonion structure needs to be done in

order to fully understand its implications for the structure of the social mirroring of
the reflexive special system. This section merely records a starting point for these
further explorations.
One late breaking result of Onar Aam is the realization that the quaternion structure
actually “mirrors” the reflections in three mirrors in a triangular perpendicular
configuration. The means that the Octonion structure is the result of the reflections
of a tetrahedron with mirrored interior surfaces. If the three mirrors of the triangular
perpendicular configuration are all tilted inward so they intersect to form a
tetrahedral pyramid then they open out to a floor. We can call this point ijk which is
intersection of the three mirrors i, j, and k. If we look at the floor facing ijk we
1073
would see in the center of it a reflection called E. The points where the floor
intersects the tetrahedral pyramid would each be reflections of ijk in the form of
iJK, IjK, and IJk. The point E would itself be reflected on the surfaces of the
tetrahedral pyramid in the form of iEI, jEJ and kEK. Thus the eight quaternions of
the octonion are associated with the four vertices of the tetrahedron and the four
midpoints of its triangular faces. The tetrahedron is self-dual. Thus it reflects itself
internally and that internal reflection goes to infinity until it defines the point at the
center of the tetrahedron as the limit of its infinite reflection. That point can be seen
as the fifth point in four dimensional space that makes the tetrahedron into a
pentahedron. Equally each mid-point on each exterior space could be extended by
reflection to produce four extension tetrahedrons on the base of a central original
tetrahedron. Onar Aam has pointed out that the floor on which E is projected can
actually be a magical mirror escape route to another world, like that through which
Alice escapes to wonderland, so that we can think either than there is one
tetrahedron and its reflection in the floor or there is actually another tetrahedron.
This gives the difference between what he calls the non-magical mirror house
where one pretend to be two or the magical mirror house where two pretend to be
one. This is a mathematical analogy for what Heidegger calls the Sameness of
“belonging together” that is the route of the social. For a given tetrahedron any of
its sides can be taken as the floor so this mirroring occurs in four directions at once.
When we think of the apexes of all the extended tetrahedrons (that make up a bigger
tetrahedron) as all one point we realize that these are the five (four extensions plus
core) that make up five tetrahedrons of the pentahedron. Thus the extra point may
either be seen as at the center of the tetrahedron or as an extension form one of its
faces.
When Onar Aam produces a ray tracing of this inwardly mirroring tetrahedron it
turned out that there wa an extran source of distortion that manifested unexpectedly
due to the 1.47... degree difference between the angles of the sides of the
tetrahedron verses the icosahedron that appears in the internal mirroring. This
difference is introduced because of the golden section basis of the icosahedron that
yields a non-whole number of quantal parts as compared to other platonic and
archemedian solids in three dimensions.
Frank (Tony) Smith (Georgia Tech) has produced an argument that shows that
when we truncate the tetrahedron introducing small triangular windows we see an
octahedral shape in the reflections. He shows that these octahedral shapes in the
reflections give you the 480 multiplication of all the representations of the octonion.
1074
Onar Aam has shown that these representations are related to each other by
intertwining Mobius strips. There is a shifting asymmetry within the octonion that
is impossible to pin down. Onar Aam has called it the bump in the carpet that moves
as you try to pin it down. That asymmetry makes the Mobius strips twist in different
places in different representations. What we have seen is that these representations
are merely the mirroring internally of a mirrored tetrahedron which produces an
infinite mirroring with the eight quaternions of the octonion as the vertexes of these
regressing and shrinking series of tetrahedrons. If instead of introducing an observer
via truncation we introduce four colors of light at the vertices then each point in the
infinite holographic reflection would have a color value. I speculate that this color
represents the escape velocity of the meta-meta-mandelbrot sets that appear only in
Julia representations. Onar Aam was the first person known to produce octonion
fractal images that show that these fractals might look like.
Onar goes on to note the inner coherence between the Greimas square and the
octonion:
Let A be something we project being upon. There are two ways to transform A,
either by negation (ANTI) or by nullification (NON). Thus, from A we have anti-A
and non-A. Now we may nullify and negate these and obtain anti-non-A. We then
have completed the square.
Figure 198:
A------> non-A
| |
| |
\|/ \|/
anti-A-->anti-non-A
Define i as a being.
Define j as the ANTI-operator.
We then deduce k=anti-i (i=jk)
Define a NON operator which we call E
We then have that I = NON-i (I = Ei)
And we get ANTI-NON-i which we call K (K = Ek = non-k = non-
anti-i)
Finally we get an ANTI-NON operator J = Ej = non-j = non-anti
From the new operator we can generate the following
IJ = k = anti-non [non-i] = anti-i

Ij = K = anti [non-i] = anti-non-i
iJ = K = anti-non [i] = anti-non-i
1075
i and anti-non-i are contradictions because i =/= K, and non-i

and anti-i
are contradictions because I =/= k
Thus, the Greimas square looks like this:

Figure 199:
E
i-----I
| |
j| J |j
| |
k-----K
E
where j = anti
E = non
J = anti-non
8. Information Mechanics
Michael Manthey has written a paper called “Toward an Information Mechanics”

(IEEE 1994 0-8186-6715-X) which I would like to explore at this point in the
development of the argument. Basically he shows that turning machines (TM) need
synchronization mechanisms between tape reader and controller and that this is
assumed but not specified in the formalism. He points out that all programs that do
not halt are defined as noncomputable. So living things, operating systems and
other things that are not meant to stop are not computable.
In prior papers we have shown that there is a hierarchy:
Real number line = System = Turing Machine
The Turing machine works on an endless tape that sequential tape. The sequential
tape has linear order but no distance. The read and write operations embody the
partial order with distance which is the dual kind of order. The running of the turing
machine approximates the illusory continuity of the real number line in time where
the two kinds of order interleave to produce the illusion of full order. We see this as
the simulation of a dynamical system.
Certain operations of the turing machine itself are non-computable such as its own
halting. But in general the output of a non-halting machine is not well defined since
the turing machine formalism concentrates on the final output of computation rather
1076
than the ongoing computational process itself. For certain kinds of machines
computation is not meant to stop with a final output but is meant to be ongoing and
only stops when there is a fault in the system or it is arbitrarily turned off by some
external agency.
Manthey shows that the turing machine needs a semaphore to produce sequential
computation between its controller and tape reader. It assumes that all computation
is necessarily sequential and it assumes the enforcement of that sequential nature of
ideal “computation.”
Complex numbers = Dissipative System = Universal Turing Machine
A universal turing machine is a meta-turing machine that can represent any turing
machine. This means there are two tapes. One tape carries the program and another
carries the controller. The universal turing machine has a program to read the state
machine controller from the tape onto the second tape where it is run and then to
unload that state machine and load another. This is a primitive view of what
happens with a multi-tasking operating system. Here the semaphores would control
the relation between tasks instead of the relation between the controller and the
reader. The point is that the storage of the state machine controller is itself writable
like the tape and is therefore like another tape. Previously we have posited that
these two tapes might be two sides of the same mobius tape. Be that as it may the
universal turing machine has two tapes or timestreams just as the complex numbers
have two illusory continuities (x and i) held together yet apart by conjunction. The
two tapes order each other as information from nowhere. One tape carries the
program that makes the Turing Machine universal. The other carries the encoded
controller of a specific turing machine. The first tape loads the encoded turing
machine and decodes it and then it computes the instructions on the second tape
until there is a meta-command to switch to another turing machine task. Where does
this order to switch come from? It must come from an outside agency. Thus there is
a need for a higher level autonomy that is given in the autopoietic system.
Quaternion numbers = Autopoietic System = Two Universal Turing

Machines exchanging
images of each other.
1077
At the next level up two universal turing machines act as external agencies to each
other telling the other when to switch programs. In order to coordinate each other
they must have images of each other. This they get by exchanging coded images of
each others suite of specific turing machine representations. Then each can act as
the controller for each other. Thus there is feedback between them not of
information but of control. They form a symbiotic relation to each other
coordinating each other. When this coordination is parallel then there is a resonance
between the two symbiotic controllers. If this resonance exists as concurrence of
control in time then they must be moving backwards in time in relation to each
other.
Octonion numbers = Reflexive System = Two Universal Turing

Machines with protocol
for coordinated
communication
When the two Universal turing machines exchange information as well as control
and coordination information then they mimic a reflexive distributed artificial
intelligent system. They can exhibit coordination and anti-coordination (which is
the equivalent of war). Both are social phenomena within the auspices of a meta-
turing machine which contain the two or more sub-UTMs.
16-nion numbers = Meta-system = Minimal system of UTMs exchanging

both information and coordination.
Beyond the octonion are more algebras but in them the bubble of linearity has
burst. You can multiply two non-zero numbers and get zero. So that means that
there is a cyclical rather than a linearily infinite set of dimensions. Basically this is a
major threshold which opens on to an infinite regress of Pascal’s triangle of
algebraic structures. This infinite regress represents the unbounded sea of
interpenetration in which minimal systems of UTMS exchange information and
coordination forming cycles of the kind we saw with meta-magician systems. In
those cycles swarms of magicians arise and produce themselves only to fade away
for their spawn to arise in the next cycle. The infinite regress of non-division
algebras is a model for the depths of long term memory whereas the bubble of the
internally mirroring tetrahedron is the model for short term memory.
1078
* * *
Manthey uses clifford algebras as his basis for a formalism of exclusion. He

excludes consideration of the states of simultaneously empty and simultaneously full.
These are the two other truth values of Matrix Logic. We posit that if these were
included a Cayley Algebra at the octonion level would be necessary. Manthey says:
... the fact that a co-occurrance and its complement

cannot co-occur means that the product of the component
vectors is a Clifford product. In other words, the co-
exclusion principle is really a statement about
'integrating' change to derive a whole, and the 'action'
performed by such a whole is to change the orientation
of its boundary! (page 105)
This is a statement about the creation of an autopoietic unity as Manthey himself

realizes for he cites the work of Rosen (LIFE ITSELF -- A Comprehensive Inquiry
into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life). The Clifford algebra being based
on Quaternions produces wholes with closed filtering (i.e. orientable) boundaries.
Quaternions are a group of three operators that express

rotation in three dimensions. Their defining properties
are: ab = -ba, bc = -cb, ca = -ac; ab = c, bc =a, ca =b;
(ab)^2 = (bc)^2 = (ca)^2 = -1. They appear as boundaries
of the 3-action abc, i.e. #(abc) = bc-ac+bc. Hence the
meta-3-action created by co-excluding a = s1 s2, b= s2s3,
c=s3s1 implicitly contains, as it were, the ability for
the corresponding 3-object to 'understand' 3-dimensional
space form its own point of view. Full-blown 3+1
dimensional space-time will presumably require four
tetrahedrally-related such 3-objects to appear. (page
106)
This Full-blown version is in fact what appears as the internally mirroring

tetrahedron that has quaternions at each vertex and reflections at each midpoint of
every face. The full-blown comprehension of four dimensional spacetime/
1079
timespace matrix appears at the level of the octonion. Manthey has not yet
considered the significance of this level in this paper.
Causality. Both of the action-composition rules given in
the preceding section can be viewed as providing models
of causality, i.e. the necessary sequence in which
actions can be performed. We prefer the first of them, in
that the 'de-composition' s1s3 -> s1s2 + (s2)s3 models
the cascade of requests . . . and allows for the
instigation of concurrent and non-deterministic activity.
The second of the composition rules is in contrast very
sequential and deterministic in its thrust. Howsoever,
the arity of the actions involved, which can be viewed as
a hierarchical issue, determines whether the causal
influence is classical momentum transfer or EPR's more
ethereal version.
Causality appears from one perspective but vanishes from another. When we are
assuming causality we are we are taking a particular frame of reference within the
heterogeneous interactive and interactively heterogeneous (Plotnitsky’s term)
Matrix of inhabited (embodied) spacetime/timespace.
Space and Time. The availability of these concepts rests

on one of the more radical implications of the model
being presented here, namely the fact that the usually
primitive concepts of 'ordinary time' and 3-dimensional
space are neither given nor assumed a priori, but rather
emerge as the hierarchical structure expands. The reason
why this is so, simply stated, is that to give these
concepts semantic content requires a context with
sufficient information-carrying capacity to express the
required distinctions. Such capacity accrues solely via
(cycle-)hierarchical aggregation. The same reasoning
applies to charge and mass: they are emergent attributes
and hence will appear in due course as the
information-carrying capacity of the constantly growing
structure evolves. Howsoever, one can loosely identify
'co-occurring' with 'space-like separated, and
'co-excluding' with 'time-like separated.' (page 107)
As we ascend the hierarchy of special systems with their implicit algebras the
1080
carrying capacity increases as multiple timespace strands intertwine and braid. Each
level gives an exponential increase in complexity defining thresholds of structure
that are unique in mathematics. This is the substrate for any information hierarchy
building that might be etched onto its surface. It is inherent in the fragmentation of
spacetime/timespace itself into separate timestreams.
Manthey sketches the computational properties of nano-computer architectures

(page 107):
“o Since everything is a process, there are many processes and no ‘data
structures’;”
I take this to mean that everything is dynamic and there are no external data-
structures, not that there are no data-structures within processes. Here we would
posit that these processes are swarms of magician systems.
“o These processes exhibit global coherence with no centralized locus of
control;”
But how is this ‘global coherence with no centralized locus control’ realized. I
posit it is realized by the fact that at the social level controlled by the octonion the
distortions of the social space that encompasses spacetime is the same for everyone.
In other words all social beings live in the same virtual/distorted world.
“o They synchronize (rather than communicate) via a distributed global
‘memory’ a la Linda’s tuple space;”
Here we see memory as the medium though which communication occurs. This is
similar to the idea of tapes as communication channels between processors. The
point of a Linda tuple space is that it is a global memory which is independent of
any process. This concept of a global memory outside the magician systems is very
important. It is like the Akkashic records in the sense that anything placed into the
global memory is always there so one can communicate across time between
processes. This would solve the problem of perfuming of magicians across temporal
discontinuities as the memory of the swarm that comes into existence and the is
destroyed until the next moment in time would be in the Linda-like Akkashic
records of the tuple-memory. So information can be communicated over time
without a carrier. This akkashic record is the carrier of the culture of the swarm. It
manifests as the always already lost Absolute Past which is embodied by the
1081
infinitely deep network of interpenetration beyond the octonion algebra represented

by the non-division algebras.
“o They execute utterly concurrently and opportunistically”
It is a swarm -- a distributed artificial intelligent and living system where each node
is autonomous. But the functionality of the swarm must also be distributed amongst
the nodes. Thus Agha’s Actor model is a good way to look at this kind of swarm in
action. Magician systems embody autonomy which has the properties of concurrent
opportunistic execution.
“o The execution regime is reversible, non-deterministic and goal-oriented;”
Reversibility allows time to flow backwards locally and thus allows

synchronization between nodes and resonant group behavior. Non-determinism
makes this a quantum computational model such as that described by George
Kampis. Goal orientation is the distribution of functionality across the swarm. Goal
orientation appears in magician systems as the voting that determines which
magicians will be around in the next moment. Non-determinism occurs because you
do not know what the momentary relations between magicians will be at any point
which gives rise to their nomination and voting processes.
“o Duplicates of a given action or synchronization are no problem;”
There is a name space associated with the memory spacetime. There may be many
copies of a particular kind of magician. The point that Manthey makes is that the
synchronization between magicians is just as important as the information flowing
between them. These possibly duplicate actions relate to Goertzel’s mutual actions
between magicians.
“o Systems with disjoint or compatibly defined bases (‘sensor sets’) can be
combined (‘composed’) with (discardable) emergent effects;”
Composition is the same as Goertzel’s Gestalt Pattern operator. The opposite of

emergence or ‘creation’ is annihilation that is implied. In our view these magician
systems must be defined in relation to both emergence (gestalt patterning) and
annihilation. They form annihilation cascades which loop to create seemingly
persistent behavior. Within these persistent configuration there is the possibility of
combination to create emergent effects.
1082
“o Conversely, a given system can be ‘encapsulated’ to provide modular ‘black

box’ functionality to other systems;”
Part whole relations exist between nodes. They are in fact holons which are both
parts and wholes from different points of view.
“o An initially ‘blank’ system can be ‘trained’ top provide a given behavior”.
This says no more than these are universal turing machines which can read tapes
and become differently trained automata.
Manthey describes this computational scheme in the following terms:
This temporally-based part-whole hierarchy can - via

interpreting resource invariants as stick
[semaphore] movement on
closed paths - be viewed as a hyper-cyclic hierarchy. The
function composition hierarchy has difficulty answering
questions like, "But what is (say) a quark made out of?".
In our view, the problem here is that such things as
quarks are being viewed in terms of what they 'do', their
'doingness'. In contrast, the cycle hierarchy is founded
on co-occurrance, whose timeless 'is-ness' effectively
grounds such questions by referring to a clearly defined
sensory boundary. In this way, the door is kept open to
considering, as Leibniz intuited, that everything is
ultimately defined by the presence of everything else.
Finally, with regard to practical computing, it is worth
mentioning that the cycle hierarchy and
co-exclusion-based actions together provide a conceptual
platform for realizing distributed computations that goes
FAR beyond such contemporary technologies as 'servers'
and 'remote procedure call'. (page 99)
Manthey goes on to give a brief overview of what he has in mind. But it very much
sounds like he is on to the use of the autopoietic hyper-cycle as a computational
mechanism. That hyper-cycle operates in all autopoietic systems as the fusion of
two no-wheres of component dissipative systems. It is clear that the hyper-cycle can
act as a controller which is also a memory because it activates based on deactivation
and deactivates based on activation. In short the hyper-cycle is a way for the two
1083
dissipative systems to control each other and create a symbiotic link between
themselves. What Manthey seems to be onto is the fact that this lies in the space of
coordination that encompasses the autopoietic systems and not in the information
flow between them. Thus it is a completely autonomous set of reactions not tied to
the functionality of the two systems.
9. Non-duality in Learning Organizations and the Stairs to Nowhere
[Note. These sub-sections originated as posts to the Learning Organizations Email

list at majordomo@world.std.com called learning-org@world.std.com. The
argument is more fragmented than usual due to the origin within the stream of email
conversation on that list.]
In our culture there is a split between Logos and Physus. We can follow Bateson
(Steps To The Ecology Of The Mind) in positing that there are a series of meta-
levels associated with both physus and logos expressed in the concepts of motion
with respect to physus and expressed in the concepts of learning with respect to
logos. We can also follow Bateson in the realization that for us as an expression of
our finitude that we cannot think beyond the fourth meta-level in these two series.
Therefore the meta-levels form a logical stairway to nowhere. We interpret the
unthinkable as Emptiness or Void in the Buddhist and Taoist senses respectively.
At each level there is the differential application of either change or learning and
there is the chiasmic relation between these dualistic poles. This structure has been
delineated in the author’s Advanced Process Architecture tutorial as a way of
understanding work and process within our culture. It is an attempt to form a non-
dual basis for understanding human processes similar to the work of John S. Hans
in The Play Of The World. The difference is that instead of considering play as non-
dual activity I consider that there is a chiasmic relation between work and play and
that workplay or playwork is the non-dual. It turns out that play characterizes the
upper levels of the ladder to nowhere while work characterizes the lower levels of
that same ladder. Once the ladder is established then it is used as a means to
understand chiasmic non-dual relations with regard to human action and work.
* * *
What is nihilism?
1084
For a good introduction see Stanley Rosen’s Nihilism, Crosby’s The Specter Of
The Absurd, Fandozi’s Nihilism And Technology
The nihilism of the Western tradition is a subtle debate really starting with
Nietzsche who first pointed out the intrinsic nihilism of our tradition. This is an
argument equivalent to that concerning the groundlessness of Being.
This does not just mean something negative but is really a point about the distortion
of the Eternal Return that occurs in our culture that renders it a Will to Power.
Nihilism is the destruction of meaning.
There can be either active or passive destruction of meaning. Passive destruction of

meaning can be indifference, neglect, ignoring something. Active destruction of
meaning can be colonization, political imprisonment, discrimination, assassination,
rape, explosion of a drug culture, all the things that destroy people outwardly and
devalue their meanings.
Our Western tradition and worldview has a fundamental dualistic ambivalence that
we need to recognize. We are obsessed with productivity and profit. An excellent
metaphor for our basic Will to Power is the Conquistadors that came to the new
world for GOLD and THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH and in the process destroyed
everything in sight in order to be able to take back ships full of gold to Europe. Gold
was not as important to the people of the Americas that had it and from which they
took it by force. They had other meanings that organized their lives but they were
reduced to the inhuman possessors of something the Conquistadors craved.
The obsession with production is haunted by anti-production which is basically the

destruction of meaning of the Other. Hollywood has a major problem with Europe
because they insist that there is a certain amount of local European television
available to preserve their traditions. Hollywood is concerned with increased profits
a large part of which are come from foreign sales. Ossie and Harriot in Sudan or
Maturana makes perfect sense, right? They do not like to be locked out of foreign
markets. But their ignoring local markets destroys the cultural meanings that are not
supported by the programs they produce. These are examples of active and passive
nihilism.
In our society as we pursue our Will to Power through economic war there is a
1085
constant emphasis on profit and productivity that has the effects of destroying
communities and neighborhoods through the corollary anti-production that destroys
meaning. Our organizations are for the most part built to further these anti-
productive ends by first colonizing the workers within them and alienating them
from their own labor. Taylorism treats the workers as objects that are subject to
management control. Both the workers and the managers are dehumanized by this
master-slave dialectic. Then these organizations act as corporations -- imaginary
inhuman fictitious persons and pursue unethical courses of actions motivated only
by profit and efficiency. They are in fact social monstrosities that roam the
landscape reeking destruction where ever they go. This is why we have the split
between profit and non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations have
motivations other than profit. Why MUST these two organizational charters be
incompatible? Because it is a fundamental split recognized in law between the
organizations engaged in economic war realizing our Will to Power and those
organizations that do not engage in the economic war. Those that engage in
economic war pay a tax by giving a certain amount of their profits to the non-profits
to do good works. This is where the ambivalence comes in. Rather than taking local
issues, ethical issues, environmental issues into account within the organizations
they ignore them and then assuage their guilt by giving money to organizations that
attempt to pick up the pieces later. Thus a facade of concern is created for publicity
purposes but the concern is displaced from the fictitious (inhuman) corporate
person. As actors within the organization we say to our selves that we are forced to
do unethical or inhumane anti-productive things by the corporation. The
corporation not being human is not bound by ethics and human concerns with
meaning. Thus we allow ourselves to do things that objectify and destroy the
meaning of others in the name of the corporation. We allow ourselves to contribute
to the obsession with productivity and profitability and participate in the anti-
production that destroys meaning that this entails. This is a fundamental split in our
organizations and in our selves.
This is a split that goes very deep in our culture. It is expressed by our ambivalence
toward Christianity and militarism. Often the rhetoric is peace as we pursue the
ends of war. A Dutch man said to the Shogun of Japan when Christian priests first
appeared in Japan “First they send their priests and then they send their army.” The
Shogun exiled all the priests immediately and killed what ever Japanese Christians
had been converted. That one act saved Japan from the fate of China that was
basically eaten alive by the European powers who sold Drugs into that society and
intentionally destroyed it in order to gain economic advantage. Japan remained
1086
closed and safe for 200 years until the Americans got worried about missing out on
the action and Perry sailed a Gun Boat into Tokyo harbor.
It is little known that the roots of this problem go back to a now little known
religion called Mithraism. It turns out that the Mithraists were the only country that
the Romans just could not beat. In fact the Mithraists took over the entire
Mediterranean Sea from the Romans at one point. They were called pirates by the
Romans. But they were invincible. It turns out that they were invincible because of
their religion which was a Greek/Persian mystery religion. Eventually the Romans
learned about Mitharism and the whole of the Roman Army converted to this
religion. Then they were able to beat the Mitharists --- Mithra was the leader of the
forces of light against the forces of darkness in the Zoroastrian dualistic religion in
which the TWO gods that rule the universe (Ahura Mazda and Ahriman) wage
eternal war.
Mithrism was the first universal religion because it existed everywhere the Roman
Army was stationed. In fact it was the only example of a universal religion when
Paul of Taursus was trying to figure out how to make an insignificant Judaic
Messianic cult into a world religion. Tarsus was the heart of the Mithraic lands. So
Paul modeled his version of the Messianic cult called Christianity on Mithraism.
This brilliant but flawed concept of marrying a male oriented mystery religion bent
on war that was the only example of a universal relation with a pacifistic Messianic
off shoot of Judaism has had profound effects producing incredible confusion in
ethics and morals for almost 2000 years. It is this confusion that appears
everywhere in our organizations as the mysterious knot of paradoxicality that the
various dualisms define and elaborate.
The parallels between Christianity and Mithrasim are to numerous to enumerate in

this post. See Mithra: The Fellow In The Cap by Esme Wynn-Tyson for a summary.
[There are more interesting points to be made here but I will control my self.
Suffice it to say that until I learned about Mithraism I really did not understand
Christianity or its important paradoxical relation to our militaristic culture. Another
way to get at this is by studying heresies as Morris Berman does in Coming To Our
Senses.]
Anyway from those humble origins we inherited a fundamental ambivalence that

exists in Christianity as the relation between Turn The Other Cheek and Paul’s
exhortation for us to Put On The Armor Of Christ. We have this Dr. Jeckel and Mr.
1087
Hyde schizophrenic personality that the Dutch man clued the Shogun into and
which saved Japan. For those 200 years Japan would only trade with the Dutch and
then only on a small island once a year. But that was their favor for saving Japan
from the ravages of Western imperialism. Now we are more sophisticated --- we do
the same things with economic means that we used to be so crude to do with
military means. But the ambivalence between our nonprofit side and our “profit is
everything” side is still there as a deep divide in our cultural psyche.
So there is a split between anti-production and production which mutually entail

each other. There is also a spilt between profit oriented and nonprofit organizations.
These splits have the effect of destroying meaning in the world. In other words we
concentrate on one criteria -- short term profitability and efficiency of production
and become blind to all other humanly important criteria. We can do this because
we band together as a fictitious legal person (corporation) by which we objectify
ourselves as a vehicle for objectifying everything else. But by narrowing our
perspective there is a side effect of destroying other meanings in the world which is
the anti-production that is the corollary to our production obsession. Then there
must be other organizations that do not engage in the economic war who pick up the
pieces from the social destruction reeked by the anti-productive side effects. This is
a perfect example of our alienation from ourselves and this self-alienation has been
a feature of the Western traditions Will-to-power for quite some time.
Now within this process of economic war (we have substituted economic war for
military war in this era) there appear novel things that give economic and
technological (as well as military) advantage. Learning-organizations are one of
those new things. We think at first that they will solve all our problems and unite
the dichotomies that bind anti-production to production while absenting real
concern into nonprofit organizations. If we could just learn then maybe some of our
endemic problems would be resolved. But like all the other fads we will eventually
become bored with Learning-Organizations because in the end we will learn that
this fad like all the others before it in the Taylorist and anti-Taylorist rationalization
of industry merely destroy meaning in new ways. Right now Learning organizations
are new and shiny and we think it will solve our problems but how will we feel in
ten years? We will be on to something else by then that we are as excited about.
There is a whole succession of these gimmicks which only have superficial impacts
on the way we do business. The very process of generating new things all the time
has to make them suspect. We are engaged in the illusion of progress that arises
from the fundamental projections of our Will to Power. Nothing new can ever
1088
address fundamental problems. This is the secret of Plato’s talking about knowledge
as remembering. Only by accessing the absolute past beneath the surface of relative
past/future can we effect the deep dualities that organize our actions and thoughts. It
is in the absolute past that these dualities are rooted. In thought/action we inhabit
the incomplete realm where we experience the chiasm/chasm of the dualities. The
process of projecting the dualities out of the chiasm creates the events in the relative
past and relative future. But the dualities themselves arise from the absolute past
which we have to access through intersubjective and mythic memories.
Originally the term Being has two fundamental senses STATIC persistence or
“Being” in the sense that Parmenides (Kant) uses the term and DYNAMIC
unfolding or “becoming” which is the sense in which Heraclitus (Hegel) uses the
term. These are two faces of the same thing. They are represented in the original
Indo-european languages as the Complete (peterite; absolute past) and the
Incomplete (chiasmic) present. Philosophies (and physical theories) tend to go to
one extreme or the other in this continuum. Whitehead proposed a process
philosophy, for instance. But most philosophies are Parmenidian and Platonic
believing there are static Forms that we can rely upon outside the flux of time. For
us the dualities are the cultural equivalent to the Platonic Forms. They persist in the
absolute past or the mythic realm that never changes. And we continue to project
them in our actions that arise out of the process flux. Part of that projection is our
productivity and part of it is out anti-productivity that destroys meaning. The fact
that we insist on remaining alienated from ourselves is the basis for our destructive
actions toward others. Only by remembering this absolute past and seeing ourselves
projecting it -- and only by stopping that projection before it arises is it possible to
change this situation. As the Tao Te Ching teaches you must change things when
they are small not when they are large and already grown too big to alter. By
understanding the dualities and changing our behavior in the heat of battle (the fog
of war) we can change what we project on the world. Part of that needs to be
through a broadening of our horizon from pure profit and productivity blinders that
provide our main motivation now. If we can stop ourselves from anti-production
and bring ethical concerns within the compass of our organizational charters then
every profit organization could become partially nonprofit oriented. We see many
organizations like this springing up here and there. But as yet the sea change has not
occurred where every organization realizes that it cannot continue to exploit the
world due to the fact that in a complexity interrelated meta-system what is taken out
as profit one place must be compensated for by some loss some where else.
1089
Discovering that systems are embedded in meta-systems is at least one step in this
direction. Realizing that the corporation is nothing other than its people -- not an
abstract transcendental subject is another. There are many strategic and tactical
moves we need to make to address the inherent nihilism in our cultural system. But
at the philosophical level one of the things we need to understand is “What is
meaning?” When we understand that then perhaps we can figure out how to stop
destroying it.
* * *
The best book on thinking is Heidegger’s book What Is Called Thinking. In that
book Heidegger says what I think is his deepest insight. He points out that the Old
English word for thinking also means Thanking. So let me define thinking and what
I mean by it just so we all know what I mean. Thinking is Thanking. In fact in Old
English there is a word “Orthanc.” The “Or” is the same root that is in the word
origin. It means the primal or primordial source. Thanc means either Thinking or
Thanking. To me thinking is an attempt to go to the origins of things -- to their
primordial sources -- by a process that is not just chatter in our heads but which
involves our entire beings -- both the logos and the physus -- in which we reveal
those sources and show are thanks to those sources. Thinking is the unveiling of the
sources and Thanking is the harkening back to those sources. Unveiling is part of
manifestation -- the deepest part of manifestation as it shows us what lies hidden
within manifestation. But once we recognize what is hidden within manifestation
we need to harken back to it continuously -- i.e. it becomes manifest in us and
outside as actions. If we engage in non-dual thinking, perceiving, and action (as
described by LOY in Non-duality) then when we uncover hidden sources of things
they must reveal themselves in our thoughts, perceptions, and actions -- In other
words we are fundamentally changed --- we have learned something and have been
transformed by it. Conceptualization is an important tool in this process. Wild and
persistent conceptualization is philosophy.
Breathing and experiencing the environment, etc is important but that alone will
only leave us on the surface of things. Thinking is looking for the coherences in
manifestation. It is the coherences and the discontinuities that point to the hidden
sources of things. We represent these as concepts. That is the way we capture what
we have thought so we can share it and retain it. We make networks of concepts
1090
embodied in statements and diagrams. But the thinking itself is the uncovering of
the intrinsic nature of the world to our intellects.
Look at the old English word Mood. Mood to us means a pervasive feeling. But in
Old English it meant the unity of heart and mind and body expressing a particular
state. We say state of mind. But really we mean a state that encompasses our whole
being. Heidegger uses mood as his essential tool for the analysis of Dasein (Being
there) or being-in-the world. When you just breath you are discovering what mood
you are in. But mood in the sense of Old English is a deep thing. It is the pervasive
state of the whole self (including the mind). Moods do not just happen when we
concentrate on our breathing -- they pervade everything we do. But in that silence
our tacit knowledge of the world becomes apparent. We do not have to be thinking
to know myriad things about the world and use them to guide our behavior. But the
tacit knowledge alone is not enough. We need explicit knowledge as well and the
process of uncovering that knowledge in order to guide our actions and be effective
in a complex and changing world.
The Mood that goes with thinking is exhilaration. Once we have formulated our
thoughts to ourselves we need to continually harken back to them as we go about
our business of changing/learning as we are transformed by and transform our
environment and ourselves.
* * *
What is memory? What is happening when we share our memories?
I think the spiral that takes us down toward deeptime which is also out toward the
highest meta-level of learning.
It is an interesting point that we all think in terms of Past, Present and Future. It was
St Augustine that framed our concept of time in this way. We have memories of the
Past, Work in the Present toward goals in the future. But we can call this surface
time. It is not the time of our Indo-European heritage. In the Indo-European heritage
time had a completely different aspect. Languages did not have a past or a future
tense. It had two tenses complete and incomplete. Future in surface time is an
unfolding from the past or complete time projected forward instead of back. Thus
1091
the split between future and past is wholly artificial. Yet it is a split that serves to
organize our whole lives and the way we perceive the world. Deep time is
organized according to the Complete/Incomplete dichotomy which is another
dualism like the logos/physus and wild/tame dichotomies -- fundamental
distinctions that organize all our knowledge. The future is merely a completion
projected forward instead of backward. For us now the direction of projection is
important but it was not always so important within the development of our
worldview. This distinction tends to make us live in a split world in which there are
myriads of unfulfilled goals and many lessons lessons learned chalked up to
experience. Sharing visions of the future and memories of the past we move though
life locked into the unfolding myth of progress. But deep time has an altogether
different visage. In deep time there is a discontinuity between past/future
(complete) and present (incomplete). The past is the mythic space that is accessible
from every point within the world. The world is full of incomplete actions that
occasionally reach completion and become part of the catalog of heroic deeds sung
by the bards.
To the extent that we live in surface time we do not delve into deep time with its
discontinuous past. We have lost track of our connection to the discontinuous past
and now only have contact with the past and future that is part of a continuum.
When we differentiate wild/tame and learning/changing we are trapped in this

surface of life. When we begin to explore the chiasm/chasm of learning/changing
and the chiasm of wild/tame then we begin to explore the realm in which deeptime
manifests. We are continuously living in the deeper time that is discontinuous but
we construct together organizations that continually talk about surface time. In deep
time the chiasmas of wild/tame and learning/changing appear because these
chiasmas are rooted in the incomplete real of the present. It is the discontinuous past
(basis of the experienced past and the utopian future) which splits to give rise to the
dualisms of wild/tame and learning/changing.
In the moment when we are acting/thinking we do not differentiate logos and

physus nor the wild and the tame. These are culturally conditioned reifications
which arise to be projected on the surface of artificial time. In the moment of action/
thinking we are too caught up in what we are doing to differentiate the physical
from the cognitive or the controllable from the uncontrollable. We are embedded in
the flux of manifestation at that point and the dualities are not considered. Thus we
say that in the moment the dualities collapse except to the extent that they condition
1092
the action we are performing and the thoughts we are having in that moment.
Normally those actions unconsciously perpetuate the cultural distinctions we have
been affirming since our early years.
But the unfolding or split of the absolute past into relative past and relative future
serves to hide the realm of the always already complete. In that realm the dualities
have their origin. They arise from the realm of the always already distinguished.
Just as paranoia is being always already afraid, so the distinctions between relative
past and relative future is always already made for us. The distinction between
logos and physus is always already organizing our world. The distinction between
wild and tame (uncontrollable and controllable) is always already there
differentiating things within our world. The absolute past is the origin we spoke of
when we considered the ORthanc -- the primordial source of all the epistemic
distinctions. The chiasm of thinking and thanking appears in the moment -- in our
act of thinking and harkening back to the sources. But in surface time we split the
thinking and the thanking in a similar way as we split the relative past (which is like
the ijk) from the relative future (which is like the IJK). In surface time we stop
harkening back to the sources (thanking) and we turn thinking into a self-sufficient
mode of cognition. Thinking is no longer receiving the sources and harkening back
to them as they arise into the incomplete stream of chiasmic action/thought.
Where does the things that emerge come from. Plato tells us. They come from
memory -- from the absolute past that is disconnected from the incomplete present.
The things that arise at the margin of our capacity to think -- the unthinkable appear
out of our memory of the mythic origins -- that is why they have an uncanny
resemblance to something we once dreamed.
Organizations have as one of their prime directives the repression of the mythic
absolute past. Their whole purpose is to project surface time so people can remain
oblivious to the absolute past. But as we reach the limits of what we can learn we
come face to face with the the void and out of that void emerges what we always
already knew. The deep mythic memories that are so unsettling. We worship the
new in our plight -- locked into the myth of progress. But what are we running from
in our flight? Is it not the absolute past and the mythic reality of the mythopoietic
era prior to our present metaphysical era within which progress first raised its head
as a possibility.
This raises the possibility that the learning organization should not be forward
1093
looking but should instead explore the always already lost territory of the absolute
mythic past instead of the ever more glossy image of a future.
Time enters the picture of our static model of higher logical types of learning and
changing stretching as a bridge between the tame and the wild. But the wild is not
necessarily what is the novel or newist but may be what is the most ancient -- the
hidden and deeply buried realm of the collective unconscious.
When we add the distinction between deep and surface time to our model we find
an unexpected dynamic that reverses the direction of history causing us to question
one of our most deeply held assumptions -- Progress -- what Ernst Block calls The
Philosophy Of Hope.
What is myth but a meta-narrative on human experience? What are the gods but a
meta-meta-narrative on the heroic myths within which they participate. What is the
creation of the gods but a meta-meta-meta narrative on the emergence of things
within the world.
The leaning organization must explore the social and personal archetypes with
meta-narratives designed to make a connection with deeptime in which the
epistemic categories are established. Ceasing to repress is to allow the deep
temporal currents to well up in our lives today.
* * *
In English it is difficult to talk about things non-dualistically. I tend to use

mindbody or wildtame to talk about the chiasm of wild to tame and reverse it to talk
about its reversible aspect. So there is also bodymind and tamewild. In a chiasm one
of the joined aspects always predominates over the other. If they are equal the
distinction vanishes. I would refer you to the theory of spacetime which is x+y+z-t.
It has an opposite theory of timespace that Heidegger talks about in TIME AND
BEING. In that the opposite past-present-future+nowhere is posited. That is called
Minkowoski Spacetime in physics that emphasizes causality over position. Notice
that spacetime is a four dimensional block in which perspectives create three
dimensional slices that unfold for us as movement in time. From different inertial
frames the relations of reversibility between timelike aspects and spacelike aspects
1094
appears different for different observers. A similar effect appears in any chiasmic
nonduality. There are different perspectives on the reversibility between the aspects
of the duality. So logosphysus and physuslogos is a single nondual “matter” where
the reversibility is a matter of point of view. Now there is a way to understand this
relation using a geometrical analogy. Baudrillard in The Mirror Of Production in a
footnote uses the Mobius strip as an analogy for the chiasmic relation between
dualities. On a Mobius strip there is local division into two sides and two faces of
the strip but globally there is only one line and one face. So there is a global/local
reversibility that shows how the reversibility between any two aspects of a chiasm
relate. So consider mind as one side of the Mobius strip and body as the other side.
Globally they are the same but locally they are different. Furthermore where ever
we were to cut the strip the distinction would be slightly different to the extent that
as we move round the strip we move our cut a complete 360 degrees. Thus the point
of reversibility may be seen at any point in a circle. This is why there is so much
controversy over simple definitions of opposite terms. Different people will make
the cut differently across the Mobius strip -- they are all right and what we need to
do is recognize the transformability between different ways of making cuts or
distinctions in the world by reference to the global sameness of the things being cut.
If we got used to talking about wildtame and tamewild and noticed that the actual
distinction between the two varied on ones perspective then it would solve a lot of
terminological bickering as well as provide us with a way to think about things non-
dually as we have learned to do in spacetime physics. It is nice when we have a
word for the global sameness which encompasses interdependent dual aspects of
things. Unfortunately we normally have to make up those words in English because
it goes against the historical grain of the language. I might suggest the phrase
globally wildtame for that Sameness. A good work on this very question is
Heidegger’s Identity And Difference. Heidegger talks of the belonging together of
opposites that are Globally the Same rather than identical. For instance, he says that
Poetry and Philosophy belong together. You can get at some things in each that you
cannot get at with the other and vice versa. Similarly we can say this for philosophy
(logos) and the practical or pragmatic (physus). That is why constructivism exists
which says we can learn things we cannot theorize about properly by just putting
things together. That is why Peirce developed Pragmatism as a philosophy for
America (the land of thoughtlessness). We cannot escape philosophy by just not
thinking.
Philosophy is love of wisdom. Wisdom is the chiasm of knowledge and experience.

Love is the Global sameness of knowledge-experience. Plato points out the crucial
1095
role of Love or Desire in philosophy in many of his dialogues. A wonderful book

about this is Anne Carson’s Eros: The Bittersweet. In fact this book is perhaps the
deepest philosophy book ever written.
But the question arises . . . What is Knowledge? What is this matter we are
aspiring for organizations and people to learn?
* * *
What is the stuff of learning? What is knowledge?
Has anyone reflected on the nature of knowledge? Has anyone noticed that it is
unlike anything else in existence? What is unique about knowledge is that once you
attain it it is indelibly imprinted on your being and over time it matures and
transforms but you never lose it once you have it. Think of every other aspect of
experience. It is all fleeting. When you eat, have sex, or have any other experience it
vanishes in an instant with little trace but fleeting memories. But when you actually
learn knowledge it stays with you and not only that it ripens over time so that if you
keep harkening back to that knowledge it unfolds deeper and deeper levels of
understanding to you. Now by knowledge here I do not mean facts that are learned
by rote. I do not distinguish tacit knowledge from explicitly linguistically
represented knowledge. I am talking about knowledge about things within the world
as experienced -- i.e. phenomenological knowledge. It is knowledge that allows the
epistemic level to appear in the emergent series:
fact --- things known in relation to theories

theory (blum) --- coherent statements based on paradigm
paradigm (kuhn) --- assumptions based on an episteme
episteme (foucault) --- knowledge based on categories within a
worldview
worldview (heidegger) --- all encompassing interpretation of
Being
is made possible first and foremost by our categories. Category theory is a

neglected branch of philosophy. I would refer you to Igvar Johannson’s Ontological
Investigations for the best most recent treatment. Also you should have a look at
1096
Foucault’s The Order Of ThingS and The Archeology Of Knowledge in order to

understand the idea of Epistemes. Categories are put forward by Aristotle, Kant,
Hegel, and others. They are our most general concepts before the collapse into
Being. Categories appear at a certain threshold of coherence in our comprehension
of the world. It is because there are categories that we can have knowledge because
all knowledge ultimately depend on the differentiation of the categories and all
distinctions unfold from them. This categorical level of the differentiation of the
most general concepts supports the whole superstructure of knowledge. And
knowledge is the thing that persists within the world more than anything else.
If we say that the most generals concept Being is persistence as such then one step
away from it at the point where our most general concepts differentiate appears the
thing that persists more that anything else. Metaphysics deals with these two levels
of our existence. Ontology asks the question what is Being. Epistemology asks the
question what is Knowledge. These are the two branches of metaphysics. Every
thing below that is “physics” or specific to a specialized discipline. Paradigms are
the assumptions of a discipline. Theories are the explicit conceptual networks that
allow us to do science and facts are independently confirmable implications of
disprovable theories. No fact exists without a theory and no theory exists without a
paradigm. But all sciences are dependent on the epistemes that are universal and
which connect the sciences together. Foucault describes how these epistemes have
changed over time within our tradition. Even interpretations of Being change over
time and Heidegger describes that. At each level there are discontinuous changes
within our tradition. The most famous of these is the paradigm shift but the same
kind of discontinuous/continuous changes occur at each level.
There is considerable disagreement over what the categories (the most general
concepts) are. Different philosophers have taken stabs at defining them. But the
global/local Mobius effect works here too so that multiple distinctions that are all
right can be made. The global Sameness of the categories is Being. Instead of
having a single distinction one has instead a cluster or constellation of distinctions
that all interfere with each other. Here are Igvar Johannson’s categories:
Figure 200:
Spacetime
State of affairs
Quality
Grounded and External Relations
Existential Dependence
1097
Inertia and Spontaneity

Tendency
Notice that this series of categories starts with a chiasm of Spacetime. Within
spacetime there are states of affairs which have qualities. Relations between states
of affairs can be in terms of grounded or external kinds of relations -- i.e. the
different qualities may be intrinsic or extrinsic to each other. Existential dependence
determines whether something actually exists or not by its depending on other
things. All things display inertia and spontaneity. And what causes things to occur
as they do is their inherent tendencies. Now once we have these categories (or some
other set) we can begin framing our knowledge of the world in these and derivative
concepts. This framing in terms of concepts is our knowledge. Notice that all these
categorical concepts could be just implicit in our tacit knowledge. Concepts get
represented as ideas via the process of ideation. But the concepts themselves are not
necessarily tied to a particular representation by ideas. Ideas are historical products
of the production of illusory continuities. Concepts are the elements of knowledge
itself that can be artificially separated from their expression in ideas or language.
Because we grasp concepts it is possible to translate from language to language or
have completely different ideational structures pointing at the same concept.
Concept comes from conception -- to become pregnant. The concept is the germ of
knowledge within the theoretical structure expressed in language that does not
really need language to exist. It is more like a vision of how things fit together that
later is expressed in language and theories. Concepts are emergent Firsts which
become clothed in ideas as we atempt to come to terms with them.
For instance we have the concept of a number. That concept is expressed in many
different ways in many different cultures but the concept itself is identical
regardless of its various representations. When we get the picture what a “number”
is then we have knowledge of it and it is extremely persistent within us. We don’t
just loose it even if we forget about the details of the representation. Concepts are
deep patterns in the way the world manifests to us. Categories are the fundamental
building blocks of these concepts. They are in fact usually meta-concepts of some
kind.
Learning is the process of uncovering these deep coherences within experience

which is normally facilitated by language. From this we get the relation between the
teacher and learner. The teacher has a concept in mind the vision of which he
wishes to impart to his student who does not have the vision. This is sometimes a
1098
painful process which is restrained considerably by the cultural barriers called

academia and educational institutions. But once you learn how to learn (by accident
and trial and error as you bumble through the academic maze) then you can go on to
pursue knowledge by your self or with others of like mind. In that case you might
run into genuine teacher/learner situations. In those situations the teacher is actually
the learner and the learner is actually the teacher. They in fact form together a
chiasmic relation. In these genuine relations of teacher/learner where exhilaration of
learning which benefits and enriches both occur there is no master/slave dialectic as
described by Hegel but instead mutual exploration in which the roles of teacher and
learner are continually being reversed between the participants. And at times it is
possible to attain an even higher level or resonance in which both the teacher and
the learner become the TAUGHT. This is to say that the global chiasmic relation
between the two become such that both learn things neither knew before. This is the
definition of the Platonic dialectic and is a rare and wonderful possibility built into
the heart of our human existence together. This is the ultimate level of the wild
learning/change organization. It is wild because it experiences and receives
emergent events as a social process of learning and change within the world. As
G.H. Mead (that most neglected of American Philosophers) says the essence of the
social is the process of emergence.
The learning-change organization participates in meta-change and meta-learning

up to the fourth and highest possible meta-levels of learning change where
emergence occurs. What is emerging are new patternings within the unfolding of
the logos and physus: New theories followed by discoveries of aspects of existence
that had always been there but never noticed before or if noticed not understood;
New kinds of things in the world that cause us to rethink our theories. By
attempting to understand these emergent patterns we are engaging in the Orthanc.
And the result is knowledge. Much of it uncommon knowledge or perhaps
KNOWLEDGE PAINFULLY ACQUIRED such as that of Lo Ch’in-shun the Neo-
confucianist who wrote one of the deepist books ever written.
Knowledge is a strange thing -- it is not something well understood. So when we

speak of the Learning organization we must always remember that it is not just
learning but also unlearning by reformulating its knowledge and it is also relearning
as it remembers what it once knew but had forgotten by ceasing to harken back to
what it had known before. Plato says that all knowledge acquisition is remembering
what we innately knew. The primordial sources of knowledge are there embedded
within manifestation. It is through the orthanc that we access them and once they
1099
appear they become very persistent. In order to forget what we know we have to
learn something else. If we do not access what we know it goes dormant but is
almost never completely forgotten because it is embedded in our experience is a
deep and lasting -- indelible trace.
* * *
As noted before the basis of this view is Bateson’s article in Steps To An Ecology
Of Mind on meta-levels of learning. He notes that in physics we can only think a
few meta-levels up in relation to the concept of movement in physics and posits that
the same is true of learning. He goes on to describe the meta-levels of learning
which he says are inherently limited to four. I will not review his argument here.
But will instead outline the meta-levels of change and learning in relation to a social
organization.
Level Zero -- The practico-inert.
This level is that of rote learning or rote action or unconsidered insignificant

changes. Everything that we call inert has practice from the past embedded in it.
Anthropologists call it Culture. Foucault in the introduction to Deleuze and
Guattari’s Anti-oedipus would call it FASCISM. It might be called Bureaucracy --
reified social structures into a frozen ossified organization. We are literally
surrounded everywhere by the artificial practico-inert artificial world created by
others and imposed on us without our consent. Emanuel Levinas talks about this
imposition by the other of the world already created in his works Totality And
Infinity and Beyond Being.
The practico-inert represents unconsciousness and stasis within our world. The
practico-inert is defined in Sartre’s Critique Of Dialectical Reason.
Level One -- Process
Meta-level one Change (physus) and Meta-level one Learning (logos) combine into
the chiasm of Process and when these two are applied differentially to the practico-
inert it is work.
1100
Meta-level one Change is production, transformation, “just doing it”
Meta-level one Learning is the application of consciousness in the process of work

usually via a method or technique.
When both are applied together there is learning change, transformational theory,
conscious production.
Level Two -- Improvement
Meta-level two Change is management, control, and guidance.
Meta-level two Learning is education, self-consciousness, theory, and

methodology.
The chiasm of Change Two and Learning Two is management education or

cybernetics.
When Change Two and Learning Two are applied differentially then there is
Process Engineering of Work Processes.
Level Three -- Innovation
Meta-level three Change is Adaptation.
Meta-level three Learning is Research.
The chiasm of Change Three and Learning Three is adaptive research which entails
innovation.
When Change Three and Learning Three are applied differentially we have Process
Science that lays the groundwork for Process Improvement of Work Processes.
Level Four --- Emergence
Meta-level four Change is Flexibility.
Meta-level four Leaning is Discovery.
1101
The chiasm of Change Four and Learning Four is flexible discovery or discovered
flexibility.
When Change Four and Learning Four are applied differentially we have Process
Creativity that creates and destroys work based on changing goals and visions of
what needs to be done in the New situation. Emergence is the arising of the utterly
new and novel that we did not expect and could never even guess would arise.
Level Five --- Unthinkable
Meta-level five Change is unthinkable.
Meta-level five Learning is unthinkable.
This claim of unthinkability makes this theory empirical in the sense that everyone
can try to think the fifth meta-level. The disproving of this postulate will expand our
conception of the world moving the challenge to the next higher meta-level.
What is unthinkable is fundamentally Empty as in the Buddhist use of the word

Emptiness “Sunyata”. The whole point of this series is not that it merely ends but
that it makes visible the Emptiness of all things which we experience as
unthinkable. This is where thought stops. This is the Void out of which things arise
when they emerge from nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
At each meta-level of the learning/change organization there is a chiasm(a)

between physus and logos. When the different aspects of that chiasm is applied
differentially to the next lower level there arises fundamental changes in that lower
level. Each level has its own language which is a meta-language to the immediately
lower level. The levels describe the path by which new things enter and
fundamentally change our world. All routine work in an organization is practico-
inert if they are completely unconscious and entail no significant changes. Most
manual and low skilled work requires some degree of learning and change. A lot of
1102
even highly skilled work does not go beyond the first meta-level. What goes beyond
that meta-level are the non-routine work that people do as they solve problems that
causes changes in the way we work due to the process of learning applied to what
we are doing.
Another point of interest is that each meta-level of learning contains a chiasm

between logos and physus. That chiasm has a point of reversibility which in each
case is wisdom. We are merely moving to deeper and deeper strata of wisdom.
Wisdom is knowledge (the result of learning) and experience (the result of baring
up under changes). So the inner point of reversibility in process between learning
and change is wisdom. That wisdom guides work which differentially applies
change and learning to the practico-inert. The same is true of each meta-level. At
each level there is that point of reversibility between change level two and learning
level two for instance which is a more refined level of wisdom which gets applied
as we improve the way we work. Each meta-levels entails a refinement of wisdom.
This means that wisdom is the interface between learning and change within the
chiasm between logos and physus. Wisdom is at the heart of work from the most
simple kinds of work to the most sophisticated work of flexible discovery. These
chiasms between learning and change are like the Mobius strip in that they are
locally different and globally the same. You can make the distinction between
learning and change from multiple angles differently but ultimately no distinction
between them will stand ut instead they are constantly shifting. Philosophy is the
love of wisdom. The love is the global sameness of learning and change. By love
we mean desire. Desire is what drives production. Desire is the wellspring from
which our learning and our changes arise. Production fulfills our desires and
necessitates the differential application of learning and change in order to produce
the things that fulfill our desire. But beyond that we desire wisdom which is the
inner balance of the logos and the physus which is non-dual. Love of wisdom itself
comes when we realize that experience and knowledge, change and learning are
really the same thing and that our actions, thoughts and perceptions are really non-
dual, that is to say that there is a level of behavior before the split between logos and
physus and knowledge and experience to which we all have access in every thing
we do. There must be philosophy in the midst of action and action in the midst of
philosophy. Our culture has spilt these two things off and driven them to extremes
producing rampant and deep nihilism. By loving the wisdom embedded in the heart
of all work we free ourselves from that inherent nihilism in our tradition.
1103
The learning/changing organization is also wild rather than tame. It is wild because
it is directly connected to emergence of the novel. The extreme of tameness is
embodied in the practico-inert which is pure habit (i.e. where mimickers rule). The
meta-levels of learning/changing bridges the gap between the wildest and the
tameist that human beings can attain. In this way we see that these two deep
dualisms frame the definition of the wild/tame learning/changing organization.
What we are trying to indicate is the non-dual source prior to the arising of the
dualities. The fused group of Sartre and the hunting pack of Cannetti lie at the wild
extreme at which all social organizations arise and the reified organization that
operates like an unconscious machine with no learning and no changes operates at
the other extreme. But actually both of these extremes are nihilistic caricatures just
like extreme distinctions between logos (consciousness) and physus (matter). What
we are trying to indicate is a state of affairs that lies prior to the arising of these
interlocking distinctions which conditions and pre-comprehends everything we do
within our organizations whether they be learning or unlearning.
* * *
What is meaning? Where does it come from? What is the relation of meaning and
knowledge?
If we are expected to learn in a learning organization --- that means to acquire

knowledge. We have already discussed the persistent nature of knowledge.
We have already noted that all the different meta-levels of learning all increase our
knowledge -- there is no meta-knowledge. Research and Discovery reveal more or
different knowledge not something different from knowledge.
We apply that knowledge to invoke the different meta-levels of change. All change
is flux. There is no meta-flux. When we change changes (i.e. exert control) we
change the flux but we do not transform it into something other than flux or flow we
only change the direction of the flow. The same is true of adaptivity and flexibility.
These meta-levels of change do not produce something other than a flux or flow
they merely make it more adaptable and flexible. Flexible here means supporting
multiple adaptations simultaneously.
We experience flux or flow and within that we do learning and derive the most
persistent thing --- knowledge which we use as a basis of modifying the flux and
1104
flow. There are feed back and feed forward loops within this interaction. When the
two are in harmony we have wisdom. Wisdom is the SAMENESS or belonging
together of experience and knowledge. Now this flux or flow of experience that
engulfs us can be defined as Primary Process. Primary process is manifestation.
Everything that manifests to us is part of the primary process. Beyond primary
processes exist only the unmanifest void.
Secondary process exists within the flow of manifestation as locuses of

organization and coherence. For the most part secondary processes are vortices of
active ordering within manifestation. People that are doing things are secondary
processes. They are manifesting things within the overall encompassing process of
manifestation. A bird building a nest is a secondary process. A volcano erupting is a
secondary process. All dissipative processes are secondary processes.
Tertiary processes are shepherded flows that do not organize themselves. That is to
say they are what is ordered by the secondary processes. The stuff we use when we
build things are the tertiary processes. The chemical plant is made up of tertiary
processes that secondary processes set in motion and guide. The nest and the lava
flows that result from birds building or volcano’s erupting are tertiary processes.
Bird nests fall apart when not constantly tended and lava flows erode. They are still
processes -- normally very slow entropic processes of some kind.
On top of the tertiary processes is a level of reification of the world into things.
Things are frozen abstractions of flows of events. We take these and construct
illusory continuities through the process of ideation. The process of ideation takes
things and makes ideational representations of them that attempt to approach the
concepts we have of those things.
So you can see that the flux of experience has real depth in that we can look at that
flux in terms of Tertiary, Secondary, or Primary processes.
Now what exists on the side of knowledge that is like the differentiation into
different layers of process?
Figure 201:
VOID - Unmanifest (limit) Meaning
Primary Process - Manifestation Significance
Secondary Process - Living Beings Relevance

Tertiary Process - Physical Processes Bateson's Differences
1105
that make a difference

Reifications of Things - Nouns Differences
Illusory Continuity - Simple Ideas Identities
Ideational connections between things
Concepts - Complex Ideas (limit) KNOWLEDGE
What we notice here is that knowledge is not simple but is in fact a very complex
cultural object that is socially constructed. The sociology of knowledge addresses
how this complex cultural artifact is produced. But there is no doubt that it is
composed of concepts approached through integrated representations. When we
start to apply knowledge to the world what we see first is that there are identities or
isomorphisms that need to be drawn between the pieces of knowledge and things in
the world. But as soon as we try to isolate the isomorphisms we notice differences
that militate against the direct application of our knowledge in any given instance.
Some of these differences as Bateson says make a difference or form a threshold
which might cause a different reaction if crossed than might exist otherwise. How
we react depends on our system of relevances applied in a specific situation that
might change our response despite thresholds being breached. Out of that tailoring
to a specific situation we go on to recognize significances which appear from the
relations of one state of affairs to another within a situation. Significances are
ultimately diacritical --- occur because of the relations between relevant things
within a context based on the recognition of differences that make a difference. So
the application of knowledge is very subtle in any given situation.
But the key point is that meaning is different from significance and arises out of the
void or the unmanifest. Meaning is not a relation of significance between known
things. Meaning is in fact an infinite horizon of discovery of the inner depths of
things beyond their significances. We need knowledge as a prerequisite to seeing
meaning. We need to recognize the differences between our knowledge and a given
state of affairs. We need to recognize the important thresholds of response. We need
to know what is relevant in any given situation. We need to understand what is
significant. But meaning opens out to an infinite horizon of discovery.
I call this theory of meaning the GEODE theory. This is because all things are like
Geodes. Geodes look like rocks. They are in fact formed as water seeps through
bubbles in rocks leaving mineral deposits. Thus under the surface of the rock there
is a structural lattice of crystals that is very beautiful -- the significances -- which
frame an empty space. It is the empty space within each thing that makes meaning
possible. If things were not intrinsically empty there would be no meaning in the
1106
world. Meaning is our opening out on emptiness.
Our structure of meta-levels of learning/change in the wild learning organization is

the crystalline structure of the geode. The practico-inert is the rock like exterior of
the geode. The unthinkable is the inner emptiness of the geode. Through the
realization of our ignorance it is possible for us to continue to learn indefinitely. As
we learn we build up knowledge -- which is only valuable to the extent it opens new
questions and makes us realize how little we really know. We take that knowledge
and apply it to situations that are embedded in the universal flux of existence. In
doing so we open ourselves up to recognizing significance at the deepest levels of
the flux -- at the level of manifestation. But beyond that because we are intrinsically
empty we open ourselves to the infinite horizon of meaning which is the jeweled net
of Indra in which everything interpenetrates with everything else through the
inherent emptiness of all things.
Think about meanings. Some of what we call meanings are significances of one
thing’s external relation to another thing. But there is a level at which we reach real
meaning in which the internal relations between things become apparent and that
can only occur because things are inherently empty and that emptiness is itself
empty (i.e. a Void in the sense that the Tao Te Ching uses the word).
For instance, given my situation I am trying to make a significant intervention in

this working paper by trying to get people to think more deeply about the concept of
learning organizations. However, as I do so I reveal my own weaknesses and
manifest myself with all my foibles. Beyond the significances of the concepts and
how they relate to learning organizations you can see the horizon of meaning as one
applies these concepts to other branches of learning or disciplines or
inderdisciplinary studies. Since we are talking at the level of epistemes and
especially when we talk at the level of ontology it will become clear that if you try
looking at the world through the lens of the things I am saying you will view the
world in a completely different light. In fact you will uncover myriad meanings
from the inner coherences of things you discover from this point of view, hopefully.
Those myriad meanings are not limited by the significances that appear from the
interaction of these ideas to the concepts of the learning organization.
VOID - Unmanifest Meaning
1107
o The infinite meanings derived from applying these insights to all aspects of our
lives. As human beings we are open to many many aspects of existence
simultaneously and we can apply what we learn in discourse to any
aspect of that existence.
o Specifically it is unmanifest because we are not talking about these other things
but everything we say can be related by us to everything else we know
within ourselves as meanings.
o At this level our discourses intertwine with the rest of our lives.
Primary Process - Manifestation Significance

o The facticity of the discourse itself as it develops historically on this list and
within our culture. We are in fact encompassed by the discourse as a raw
facticity of our existential situation as human beings.
o At this level all the different discourses we are participating in is one single
interleaved discourse which we multi-task to split into separate threads.
But the separation is in fact artificial in our own experience.
Secondary Process - Living Beings Relevance

o The significant strands of argument and the coherences of these categories made
by individuals who partake in the universe of discourse. By living within
the discourse and experiencing their structures we are engaged in
Heuristic Research in which we try to understand completely what the
relevance of these categories are to us.
o At this level there are different threads associated with each of the discourses we
are participating in.
Tertiary Process - Physical Processes Differences that make a difference

o The ways in which these categories are used in discourse. They are continuously
being invoked in multiple ways. We approach their appearances via
humanistic methods such as Hermeneutics, Dialectics, Structuralism,
Phenomenology and other humanistic methodologies.
o At this level we have ongoing images of our interlocutors that we build up based
on their messages to us.
Reifications of Things - Nouns Differences
o Epistemic categories like logos/physus or wild/tame that appear within our talk.
o Ideally we would engage in multiple strands of talk at the same time in order to
see the cross-currents.
1108
o At this level we are dealing with our reified images of issues, individuals,
arguments, computer mediated communication etc.
Illusory Continuity - Simple Ideas Identities
o the written/oral talk about philosophy and learning organizations that attempts
to use that knowledge that appears as cultural artifacts.
o At this level we are projecting the argument from message to message in the
stream of responses.
Concepts - Complex Ideas KNOWLEDGE

o philosophy and learning organization as historical subjects and disciplines with
a body of knowledge associated with both.
o At this level we have our concept of communication via computer aided
communication devices such as elists.
So to answer the questions posed here:
What is meaning? The interpenetration of all things.
Where does it come from? Out of the Emptiness of the Void at the heart of each
thing including ourselves.
What is the relation between knowledge and meaning? They are opposite limits to
human understanding of experience.
What we really need is an organization that is geared to the receptivity of

meanings.
Learning in an organization is not enough. We must apply what we learn to garner

wisdom and that wisdom naturally leads to the uncovering of an infinite horizon of
the emergence of meanings within our lives and the lives of others we associate
with.
The primary goal of modern organizations is the repression of the upwellings of

meanings in our lives.
Why is it Business seeks to keep us busy? So we will not have time to stop thinking
about significances and to reflect on meanings that arise continually from the void.
1109
Thinking deals with significances. When we stop thinking and reflect we encounter
myriad meanings pouring in on us from the void. If we keep thinking about this and
that we can effectively repress these meanings --- to the point that for many it is as
if they do not exist.
Our schools teach knowledge but the history of Western Culture is one of a
suppression of meanings. If you look at Foucault’s THE ORDER OF THINGS you
will see that the Medieval Episteme was geared to seeing meaning in the world and
we have progressively changed our epistemes in ways that exclude meaning. Now
we have gone to the extreme in the intensification of nihilism (active and passive
destruction of meaning) and it is time to reverse this trend and learn to see meanings
again.
Many traditional cultures use knowledge as a spring board for the uncovering of
meanings. Our culture uses knowledge as a means of suppressing meanings. One
way this is done is by not recognizing levels of process below the reification of
things.
* * *
Heidegger has the idea of the They (Das Mann) and the fact that when we fall into
inauthenticity we are immersed in the They. It is a kind of collusion in which
everyone is caught up in the turmoil of things and no one really confronts their
“ownmost possibilities” i.e. the possibility of Death. I mean something similar to
this when I say we are kept busy I mean by ourselves in collusion with everyone
else. However, instead of death itself I would substitute the Void. We are authentic
to the extent we reflect on the Void -- the emptiness inside everything. And going
beyond Heidegger I would say that when we turn toward the void and become
authentic that is because we are focused on the meanings that are pouring out of the
void when we do not suppress them by significances (i.e. diacriticalities). I draw a
sharp distinction between:
significance
relevance
values
aesthetics
1110
AND
meaning.
Significance, relevance, values, and aesthetics are all diacritical in the sense that
Sussaire (sp?) (Course on General Linguistics) uses the term meaning the relation
of everything to everything else synchronically and diachronically. This means we
see something as significant in terms of its differences with all other things and
through drawing what Bateson calls differences that make a difference we prioritize
these significances and create threshold values of what is significant to us, or
relevant, or valuable, or aesthetically pleasing etc.
But meaning is different from these diacritical characteristics that weave a web by
which we are trapped in the They. For instance, I saw an old Indian on TV once
who said that when he was a child everything in the world had meaning but by
living the life of the dominant culture he had lost that sense that was still alive in his
people when he was a child. Hearing this and other similar Indian testimony we can
clearly distinguish meaning from the nihilistic artificial illusory continuities
projected by our culture through the process of ideation. Most people within our
culture do not know how to become authentic again and access meaning except
when it floods in on their lives through tragedy of the death of a loved one or some
other similar catastrophic event that breaks the web of our comfortable existence
within the security of the They.
One way to begin is to look at the concept of Fate. Within the Indo-European
worldview fate used to be a key concept -- in old English it was called the WYRD.
Fate is our absolute determination out of the Absolute Past (which can never be
made present). This absolute past is always already lost. But it appears to us in
allusions and many times as a primal scene by which our worldview coheres. When
we begin to explore our own fatedness (part of which is our birth and death) then
the realm of meanings begins to open up within us. In other words it does not open
up by considering relations between ourselves and all the other things in the world.
But instead it opens up by considering our relation to the aspect of the world that
never appears. That is a deep source within ourselves that is seldom tapped by
artificial or superficial time. It is only deep time (mythic time) that taps that source.
In Heidegger, the concept is that by constantly confronting ones finitude one can
1111
become authentic. But just thinking about death all the time is not enough. Instead
one should think about one’s fatedness and ones connection to the absolute past
from out of which future and past unfold which is distinguished from the becoming
of the unfinished present. When something is finished (completed) then it is
possible to see the meaning in as opposed to the diacritical significances
(relevances, values, and aesthetics.)
My model of the learning/changing within an organization is like steps that go up

toward the attic but actually just end suddenly at a void. As we work within an
organization everyone is looking downward toward the lower meta-levels
concentrating on the BUSYness at hand. However, at any point the individual or the
whole organization could look upwards toward the void (emptiness) that informs
everything they do. As soon as you introduce emptiness into activity and realize
that things and processes are inherently empty, then the first question is WHY are
we DOING THIS???? The first question is what is the meaning of what we are
doing? How many of us have an answer to that question? When you orient yourself
toward that question and make your actions and products a means to coming to
terms with meaning then everything changes for that person or that group of people.
Suddenly the nihilistic bonds that hamstring us fall away and each instant we are in
a state of wonder at the manifestation of everything out of the void. It all just wells
up unbeckoned from the void and is full of unfathomable meanings that are
awesome.
This is the difference between organizations that are drenched in their own
darkness and those that bask in the light of wonder. One looks down toward the
practico-inert and the other orients itself by looking up through the meta-levels
toward the void at the end of the stair case of meta-levels. What is wonder but the
inability to think about something. At meta-level five we hit that barrier. It is similar
to the barrier in mathematics created by the Group A5 that do not allow degrees of
five or higher to be solved except by analysis. It is a fundamental limitation built
into our beings. Many people talk about the finitude of man -- but seldom do people
say exactly where that finitude occurs in us. The claim here is that it occurs at this
fifth meta-level of learning-changing.
This is the point. The ontology presented here is empirical. Try to think the fifth
meta-level of learning change. Bateson bets you cannot do it. If you cannot do it
then what is this unthinkability? I interpret it as emptiness or void. Once you see
that there is a direct bridge to Buddhist theory of existence which says that there is
1112
no self (atman). The self of the worker and the organization is hollow -- is founded
on nothing, is groundless. Since Nietzsche it has been clear that our world view is
groundless, founded on an abyss. This means every organization and every self in
each organization is essentially empty, and this emptiness is ungraspable because
the emptiness is itself empty.
But what happens when you reverse the viewpoint and accept this void as the
starting point rather than a bad end where all our systems fail? What happens is that
you see that the world does not disappear but it becomes split into two different
visions. These visions are discussed by Plato in the parable of the cave in the
REPUBLIC. Our organizations are like the cave where we all labor inauthentically
under the delusions that we collude to project together as a means of avoiding
facing the groundlessness of our existence. But occasionally one of us gets pulled
out of this cave out through the opening of the void. When we enter that void we
realize that forms do not disappear but instead that everything becomes crystalline,
like the inside of the geode that we can only see because of the empty center. That
pure and crystalline nature of things is the realization that everything is empty and
because of that emptiness everything in existence interpenetrates. In Buddhism this
is called the Tathagata Gharba or sometimes the Dharmadatu. The point is that the
person that is taken out of the cave, when they re-enter the cave realizes that the
inside of the cave and the outside of the cave are the same reality not some
transcendental reality. Understanding how these two could be the same took
hundreds of years within the Buddhist tradition.
We don’t have to be Buddhists to appreciate how the structure of our worldview

has these very mysterious qualities of finitude and absolute limitation that effect
every thing we do.
Consider this. It is only by moving up meta-levels that we can exert control over
change in our organizations or selves. But we can only move up four meta-levels so
there is a clear and fundamental limitation to our possibilities of exerting control
within the world over ourselves or our organizations. Also looked at from the point
of view of learning there are just four meta-levels of learning so we are limited
fundamentally in our comprehension of things. Between not being able to control
deeply or understand deeply we are caught is what is really a very tenuous situation
as our organizational and self structures are not just groundless but we are pushed
up close to that groundlessness all the time.
1113
From this perspective it is easy to see how the real problems of existence revolve
around the void and emptiness of all things and that our tradition is very short
sighted in its total immersion in things and events that it gives mundane designated-
as-real status. Up till this point there was no real connection between our worldview
and that of the Buddhists and Chinese. However, with the realization of the
Fragmentation of Being within modern ontology and the conceptualization of the
finitude of meta-levels suggested by Bateson we are suddenly thrown into a more
sophisticated and subtle realm of philosophical exploration that encompasses
everything we do as organizations or selves as we unfold from the abyss and infold
back into the abyss-- that groundlessness that subverts all our actions and renders all
our viewpoints nihilistic when they suppress the meaning that overflows from the
void.
Summary:
We have been advancing a theory of learning organizations based

on some philosophical considerations.
We have identified a level of explanation between theory and

worldview called the episteme. This level was first proposed by
Foucault in THE ORDER OF THINGS and ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE.
The level of the episteme is an emergent level at which knowledge

arises. Knowledge is the most persistent thing in our experience.
The heuristic levels so far identified are as follows:
FACT
THEORY
PARADIGM (mindset) (assumptions)
EPISTEME (highest categories and fundamental categorizations)
WORLDVIEW
So far several phenomena have be focused on at the epistemic
level:
1) the Philosophical Categories (highest concepts) (Igvar
Johannson, Kant, Aristotle)
2) Dualities
1114
a) physus / logos
matter consciousness
practical impractical
material ideal
facts theory
b) tame / wild
controllable uncontrollable
apollonian dionysian
vishnu shiva
etc. (there are many more than these)
3) Temporality
Linear time of Augustine with Past/Present/Future is the
everyday guise of surface time
This unfolds into the time of physics
Surface timespace = Past + Present + Future - nowhere

This is Minkowoski spacetime;
See also Heidegger's TIME AND BEING
Surface spacetime = x + y + z - t
Einstein's relativity theory
To produce deep time relative past and relative future
collapse together to form the absolute past which the dual
of which is the present flux which Wm. James called the
Specious Present.
Deep time = absolute past (completion) / presence (incomplete)
frozen static Being flux
Parmenides Heraclitus
source of dualities chiasm
Utterly deep time = chiasm of stasis and dynamism
In Plato's SOPHIST the sophist says what we really want is
"change and changelessness at the same time"
4) Nihilistic dilemma
Will to Power toward productivity and profit ONLY leads to a
destruction of meaning as a side effect of perspectivalism.
Split between the nonprofit and profit oriented motivations.
Ambivalence in our self-perception as pacifists and
militarists.
1115
5) Chiasma (anti-chasm) -- prior to the arising of dualities

Orthanc - the chiasm of thinking and thanking
Spacetime/timespace
learningchange/changinglearn = wisdom
tamewild/wildtame
6) Wisdom
The point of reversibility between learning/changing is viewed
as wisdom. Wisdom is experience (physus) plus knowledge
(logos). In the heart of practice is wisdom embedded as an
intrinsic part. The love of wisdom comes from the realization
of the global Sameness of practical experience and theoretical
knowledge.
7) Mobius Distinctions
Dualistic distinctions cannot be made once and for all. But in
fact the dualities are like the Mobius strip which has local
duality but global sameness. See Heidegger IDENTITY AND
DIFFERENCE. At different points along the Mobius strip the
distinction is drawn differently. So there are multiple
perspectives on every distinction.
We have used Bateson’s hierarchies of meta-levels of learning derived from

Russell’s Higher Logical Types as the basis for positing that there are four meta-
levels to the learning organization.
We are concerned not only with the logos of learning but also the physus of
change. We posit that at every meta-level there is a chiasm between learning and
change. The effect of one meta-level on a lower meta-level is through the
differential application of either change or learning. The chiasm of the two cannot
effect the lower meta-level but is a way of looking at the inner coherence of things
at that meta-level. Each meta-level is expressed as a meta-langauge that is used to
talk about the lower meta-level.
The bottom of the hierarchy of meta-levels is posited to be what Sartre calls the
practico-inert. It is congealed habitual unconscious thing-practice-theory.
The top of the hierarchy of meta-levels is the unthinkable. We interpret the

unthinkable in terms of the Buddhist “sunyata” or emptiness that is itself empty.
Emergent things arise out of this emptiness and are accepted within the organization
1116
in stages where the different meta-narratives are constructed in order to understand

the novel thing that arises. The level of emergent things is by definition wild or
Dionysian. The level of the practico-inert is by definition tame or Apollonian. Thus
the wild/tame duality becomes the two ends of the ladder of meta-levels of change/
learning.
The purpose of this model is not to be just another model of a learning organization
but instead is a point of departure for understanding all possible learning
organization models. We have attempted to use the epistemic level to allow us to
see what the possible structures of dualities allow us to posit as the basis for a
learning organization. This is possible because what we derive from learning is
knowledge. Therefore it is the epistemic level that constrains the possible forms of
the learning organization.
This is a point of departure for a deeper study of the worldview that encompasses
this model. This will be the next subject that will be breached in these notes.
As we begin to explore the ramifications of these hints it is important to keep in

mind that none of us know anything at this level. To know about knowledge would
be meta-knowledge which is not available to anyone. Notice that all the levels of
learning only produce knowledge. None of them produce what might be called
meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge would be knowing about knowledge (ie
concerning its ultimate status with regard to Truth, Reality, or Identity). Likewise
each meta-level of change/learning only has wisdom as its chiasm not meta-wisdom
(what ever that might be). Similarly each level of change produces impermanence
or flux (the least persistent thing) --- none of the meta-levels produces any meta-
flux (changes of change is still a fluctuation). There is nothing beyond knowledge
(the most persistent) and flux (the most impermanent) and wisdom (the inner
coherence of these two). This is why the series of meta-levels end in the
unthinkable. Heightening learning can create more sophisticated knowledge but
since there is nothing beyond knowledge as a higher meta-level there is an intrinsic
limit to this sophistication. In the same way going up the meta-levels of change only
gives us a deeper understanding of the flux of things in existence. It does not
introduce us to any thing beyond change itself. As is said the only thing that does
not change is change itself. As for wisdom it is clear that this too is a limiting
concept. What would be beyond wisdom to attempt to obtain? Only a god like
status. Only our images of gods have attributes that go beyond knowledge, change
and wisdom. Human beings are limited to these as defining attributes. This is why
1117
we are called rational animals. The rational part is connected to knowledge and the
animal part is connected to change. Beyond rationality our only further goal is to
obtain wisdom. Wisdom is something that if you claim to have it you lose it by that
very act. It is the understanding that the Tao remains forever nameless. What we
have instead of meta-knowledge is an intrinsic ignorance and we need to stick with
that ignorance and explore its ramifications.
One of the things that quickly happens is that we start wondering about the context
of the episteme which is the worldview. How does that work and what relation does
it have to the episteme. Can we really understand our knowledge separate from the
world in which it appears?
10. The Logical Nature of the Social
In this final section I intend to discuss the answer to the problem of

intersubjectivity. Husserl posed the problem in his Cartesian Mediations and
Logical Investigations. And Igvar Johannson takes this problem very seriously in
his Ontological Investigations. Basically the answer that he and others, like
Goertzel, have come up with is the idea that there is a ramification of mirrorings
within each person of the persons around them. This takes the form of a kind of
infinite regress of thought “If I do this, and They do that, then I could do someother
thing and they will probably do something else. . .” We can see this as the infinite
regress within the tetrahedral magical mirrorhouse. But there is another way of
looking at this problem which takes into account non-duality. Say that my
experience is made up of knowledge and flux. Knowledge being the result of the
learning at all the four meta-levels of learning. Flux being the result of changes at
all the four meta-levels of change. The non-dual relation between learning and
change is Wisdom. But the dual relation between them is Knowledge and Flux.
Now suppose that I get married. So I can look at the relation between my
knowledge and flux and contrast that to the knowledge and flux of my spouse. Or
within the autopoietic system of marriage I can look at my knowledge in relation to
the flux of my spouse OR I can look at my spouses knowledge in relation to my
experience. Thus in an autopoietic system there are four ways to combine
knowledge and flux. As they exist in each of us or as we compare our knowledge to
the others flux. There is not just the wisdom of each of us but something deeper that
we can share. This is Gnosis. It is the Knowledge we have of each other from
within. How can we have knowledge from within? Because we can look at the pair
1118
not as a couple of individuals with their own flux and knowledge but also can look
at the couple as a crosswise --chiasmic -- paring of the knowledge of one related to
the experience of the other. If these knowledges and experiences are completely
different then this greater contrast will cause an even deeper level of understanding
of each other’s knowledge and experience. This is why traditional cultures
attempted to segregate the lives of women and men. A good example is the radical
segregation evidenced in classical Greek society.
Now we have described the quaternion level where we compare knowledge and
wisdom between different people within the autopoietic symbiotic dyad rather than
considering them as individuals. We can do this because we are thinking them
chiasmicly or non-dually instead as organisms that are separate. We are considering
the reversible field between the two organisms that are symbiotically related to each
other. But we can move up a level to the reflexive social level by considering that
each of those engaged in the symbiotic relation have different points of view on it
that occur simultaneously. Thus each of us repeats the assessment of our flux based
on our knowledge, our knowledge based on the others flux, our flux based on the
others knowledge and the projection of Otherness in which we try to imagine their
knowledge based on their flux. Each of the two are considering this at the same time
and so they project the octonion and its distortion of the social field. These
distortions occur because at the octonion level it matters how things are associated.
So when we compare knowledges and fluxes we cannot merely revolve the rubric’s
of the cells of our knowledge and flux at will. Instead the movements are not
commutative and beyond that are not associative. So different rotations give
completely different views of the states of affairs between the two and their world.
When we realize that each married couple generates a similar closed system then
we see that the world can be modeled as autopoietic and reflexive systems. The
autopoietic nodes are analogous to the ijk of the quaternion. It acts as an externally
mirroring surface that reflects all the other autopoietic nodes in the autopoietic
network. The octonion nodes are like closed minimal systems and can be thought of
as tetrahedrons with mirror surfaces on the inside. They generate a pattern of eight
quaternions. The autopoietic system is opaque in that each of its parts can act as if it
were the whole containing the other parts as its own parts. The octonion is opaque
on the outside of the mirrored tetrahedron. The mirrored tetrahedron creates the
projection of itself which can be seen as an example of the ‘belonging together’ of
Sameness spoken of by Heidegger in Identity And Difference. It is the difference
between what Onar Aam calls the Magical Mirrorhouse and the normal non-
magical Mirrorhouse. The former is one pretending to be two and the other is two
1119
pretending to be one. The octonion is the external mirroring of the quaternion. It

produces the minimal system that can be seen as tetrahedron, Mobius strip, knot,
and torus. But beyond that is the infinite depths of interpenetration that represents
the rest of society composed of other families that likewise engage in autopoietic
and reflexive mirroring.
Each couple at the experience level forms an autopoietic symbiotic system where
each has access to the other’s knowledge and experience. But at the reflexive level
the otherness of the Other in the relationship is brought to the fore as each
approximates the otherness of the Other by triangulating via non-dual relations.
Since this is happening from both sides of the symbiotic relation we get the
octonionic reflexive structure that appears as the mirroring reflections within the
minimal system.
Figure 202:
His Knowledge and His Experience An autopoietic relation
Her Knowledge and Her Experience within marriage
His Knowledge and Her Experience
Her Knowledge and His Experience
These relations are not commutative and are described by the quaternion.
* * *
Figure 203:
His Knowledge and His Experience A reflexive relation
His Knowledge and the other's Experience within marriage
The other's Knowledge and His Experience
The other's Knowledge and the other's Experience ===> THE OTHER
Her Knowledge and Her Experience

Her Knowledge and the other's Experience
The other's Knowledge and Her Experience
The other's Knowledge and the other's Experience ===> THE OTHER
These relations are also non-associative and are described by the octonion.
Note here there is an infinite regress but it is contained by a finite structure that
contains the distorting reflective structure discovered within the mirrored inwardly
reflecting tetrahedron. It is like there are four mirrors facing each other and
reflecting. There is no higher structure because of the closure of the tetrahedron.
In the case of the quaternion there is a reflection of everything beyond the dyad of
1120
resonating organisms locked into the non-nihilistic marriage relation. The inside of
the dyad is opaque to us. The only thing we know is that each part can be the whole
containing the other parts. We also know that the pair gives rise to three as occurs
with the birth of the child from the symbiotic couple.
In the case of the octonion there is an inward reflection that produces the
appearance of the Other (as the synthesis). The couple gives rise to the child -- a
new synthesis beyond themselves -- by the action of the dialectic. They form a
meta-system for the creation of new individuals that will later form reproductive
(autopoietic) and social (reflexive) dyads. Within that meta-system there is a mutual
mirroring that allows otherness to appear diffused as myriad reflections within the
minimal system. That pairing is opaque from the outside. Thus we can posit that the
quaternion which is outwardly reflective and inwardly opaque and the octonion
which is inwardly mirroring and outwardly opaque form an interval that we can
associate with the Clearing of Being of Heidegger within which the Fourfold of the
world comes into existence.
The positive fourfold and the negative fourfold together form the octonion and we
can see it as the mirror of the ogdad of ancient Egyptian religion. In that religion
Atum (Atom) appears manifest from the ogdad which is the orginary eightfold
before creation. The ogdad forms a mound upon which rests the Atum. The Atum is
quaternionic outwardly reflective side of the clearing in Being whereas the Ogdad
itself appears as the eightfold octonion that can be also considered as the fourfold
quaternion. The surface of the mound that arises out of the primeval waters is the
inward reflectivity of the tetrahedral minimal system while the outwardly reflective
atum is the view of the quaternion from the outside as it appears as a Leibnizian
Monad. In our tradition the negative and positive fourfolds have been dualistically
separated and associated with male and female (See The Fragmentation Of Being
And The Path Beyond The Void). But when we take the lost metaphysical principle
of the negative fourfold and combine it with the positive fourfold enunciated by
Socrates in the Gorgias and developed by Heidegger as the structure of the world
the we get a non-dualistic view of the infinite regress of the social reflectivity
within the closure of the minimal system generated out of the autopoietic dyad. The
infinite regress is not an infinitely extensible hierarchy of moves and counter moves
projected by the two people locked in the resonating social relationship. Instead the
regress is a mirroring within the closure of the minimal system that creates patterns
of reflection that allows us make closure on the Otherness of the other within the
non-nihilisic symbiotic relation of marriage. Marriages are supported by the culture
1121
which is made up of a mirroring of the marriage state. We see nodes of autopoietic

pairing that are sites of reflexive mirroring that all mirror each other as separate
households within the city. There are degrees of meta-systems. The city and the
household are both partial meta-systems within the wilderness. As we transition
between the wilderness and the system of the individual male who is the focus of
the positive fourfold we see these shadows of the family and the city that ameliorate
the harshness of the raw wilderness of pure complementarity. These intermediary
stages appear as manifestations of the negative fourfold that haunts the positive
fourfold. They appear because the male householder can enter into autopoietic
relations with his wife and others within the city so that the household and the city
become meta-systemic shadows of the property owner. Today we might think of the
corporations and their destructive relation to families and neighborhoods. The
corporations or the governmental bureaucracy feed off of the social fabric and the
families yet they work to destroy them in many cases. The shadows of the corporate
destruction of the social fabric continually haunts the corporate system. It cannot
escape these shadows of our finitude upon which the corporate system preys.
Families and neighborhoods are inefficient. But they are the social fabric out of
which the corporate structures spring and on which they must continue to feed in
order to exist.
So this is another solution to the problem of intersubjectivity that sees not an

infinite tree of game moves within eachother’s heads he or she contemplates the
Other, but instead a regress of infinite fractal reflectioins within the closed space of
the minimal system that can be ‘taken in’ as a single reflective pattern. I believe this
is a unique solution to the phenomenological problem of intersubjectivity. It is
possible because we take the social as fundamental instead of the individual like
most of the existentialists. Then we appeal to the mathematical analogy of the
octonion reflection within the tetrahedral minimal system for a model of infinite
reflection within a finite space. And finally we see the octonion as the embodiment
of this reflective pattern at the level of the reflexive system that is the embodiment
of the socius (the living social field). With this argument we have finally attained
the threshold of the social.
11. Our Finitude
The non-dual is not a mystical state but a very common state. We are continually
going into micro-trances when we read or fall into conversation or we concentrate
on things. These micro-trances are manifestations of the non-dual. In them we can
1122
explore possibilities but cannot realize those possibilities until we emerge into a
dualistic way of looking at things that separates ourselves from them so we can
manipulate them. Thus we need both the dual and the non-dual approaches to
existence and we use them naturally all the time without realizing the transitions
between the micro-trance states and dualistic states where subject and object are
dualistically separated. All these states of micro-trance are associated with the
aspects of our finitude that make us human; like eating, sex, presenting ourselves to
others, work, and play. Think of all the variety produced by us in foods and eating
situations. How about all the variety in erotic situations and materials. The whole
fashion industry operates merely on the fact that we want variety in how we appear
to others. This is because when we look at another we go into a micro-trance as we
size them up and they size us up. So it is with reading, watching media, and
engaging in conversation. All of these states allow us to explore the possibilities of
things and manifest infinite variety. These are all social nexes. So in the variety we
are seeing the action of the infinite reflexivity of the distorting octonion structures.
It is this distortion that allows the difference to appear. And in fact the mandelbrot
and its meta-mandelbrot and meta-meta-mandelbrot higher level fractal structures
are the basis of this explosion of complexity and difference that appears at the levels
of complex, quaternionic, and octonionic systems. When we look at the fashion
industry, food industry, pornography industry, media industry we see whole
segments of our economy based on the infinite distortion and variety production
related to our finitude. Because we are finite we desire the infinite mirroring of
desire in these social nexes. And we desire desire first before any one particular
desire (cf. Anne Carson Eros The Bittersweet). We do not prefer to eat alone, we
have sex with others (for the most part) and wear clothes for others. We work and
play with others. We are in our finitude social creatures and that sociality leads to
infinite variety. Notice the finite aspect associated with sleep. There is not nearly
the explosion of variety production associated with sleep as an industry as the
others that were mentioned because that is something we do on our own. But when
we sleep we even dream of the others and our dreams produced the same infinite
variety that we see outwardly in the other fields associated with our human finitude.
Our finitude as creatures leads from the social expression of that finitude to an
infinite distorted reflectivity and variety production. This is because our human
finitude comes out of the social situation of reproductive symbiotic organic relation
between us as creatures and the non-nihilistic distinctions that we socially construct
such as marriage. The point is that within the infinite iteration of the mirroring there
are frieze patterns such as those discussed by Stuart Kaufmann in his developments
1123
of Spencer-Brown’s Laws Of Form. As he notes there are often several points of

view on every iterative frieze pattern of distinctions. Out of that he develops the
rudiments of the special theory of relativity which we have seen is a mathematical
formulation of the interval structure of the chiasm whose reversible phases look
different from the points of view of different observers. We can use Jamarie’s
Subjectivity Information And System formulation of relativistic information theory
to understand how this chiasma plays itself out in relation to the information
patterns that appear within the social sphere. We go beyond this to attempt to
understand the next levels up that are associated with the quaternion and the
octonion. Systems theory needs a relativistic information theory to posit chiasmic
difference between the different viewpoints of observers which after all represent
orderings form no-where that co-determine each other’s experience and co-evolve
with each other constituting a single social field. But we cannot understand this
fully without seeing that these observers form autopoietic symbiotic cognitive/
living unities and go on to reflect on each other’s Otherness at the reflexive level.
Within this mirroring there are patterns within the reflection that are stable friezes
and the generator of these stable patterns are non-nihilistic distinctions -- that is the
distinctions that our social structures are founded upon. Marriage is a pertinent
example of such a distinction. You cannot tell a married person from a non-married
person by looking at them -- if they are not wearing a ring. But you can only figure
out that they are marriage by knowing their history within the social contexts of
which they have been apart. This non-nihilistic distinction is invisible within
society but has profound implications for every act performed by the married
person that defines them over against the non-married person. These invisible
vertexes within the reflective patterns indicated by them but still invisible are the
stuff of the social. All the reflections within the social fabric define and point to the
non-nihilistic distinctions within society that are recognized and acted in relation to
by everyone whether they transgress the distinctions or preserve them. The
continual transgression of the non-nihilistic distinctions and the active and passive
nihilism of members of society reflect the blindness of those who consider
themselves independent individuals who ignore and destroy the social sphere. The
production of nihilism is intimately related to the maintenance of the visibility of
the non-nihilistic distinctions. Our society produces nihilism as a by product of the
maintenance of manifestation of persistent things within the world. Within the
nihilistic profusion there are maintained the invisible non-nihilistic distinctions that
allows us to navigate the social field. Beneath the relation between nihilism and
non-nihilistic distinctions there is the production of the profusion of variety related
to our finitude in its infinite social reflection within the closed nexus of the minimal
1124
system. Beneath the relation of finitude to infinitude is the relation of the negative
fourfold to the positive fourfold -- the ultimate showing and hiding regime within
our world.
Here is my model of the Worldview:

Figure 204:
ontic --- beings, things, entities, stuff within the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ontological difference between beings in world and Being of World
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
W -- ontology --- Being --- Pure Presence--- Form
O -- ontological monism --- Is is. --- Process Being--- Sign
R -- ontological dualism --- Is isn't.--- Hyper Being --- Trace
L -- ontological multiplicity --- ' --- Wild Being --- No-trace
D -- unthinkable, impossible, absolute ignorance, utter Otherness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
emptiness --- VOID --- interpenetration- antidote for Being
The realm of non-nihilistic invisible distinctions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
meta-ontology -- ABYSS --- Groundlessness--- fragmentation of Being
end of metaphysics
meta-illusion
The realm of the endless production of illusion and
nihilistic distinctions.
The meta-levels of Being separate the special systems as we move from
system to meta-system
SYSTEM Individual Whole unifying Parts
pure presence
DISSIPATIVE SPECIAL SYSTEM Will to power (Father) Reality (Full Order)
process Being
AUTOPOIETIC SPECIAL SYSTEM Household* Duality (LO-D/PO+D)
hyper Being
REFLEXIVE SPECIAL SYSTEM City* Partiality (PO)
wild Being
META-SYSTEM Wilderness Firsts appear in
Void
Full Meta-System No order
1125
Disassembled Parts
* Partial Meta-system
In order to realize autopoietic resonance we must first have duality. Duality is a

prerequisite for resonance. We might associate that with what Lacan calls the sign
of the Father. The autopoietic symbiotic relation between the mother and child
comes first. Then the Self of the child appears with the advent of the mirror stage
and after that the symbolic relation with the father that is intrinsically Oedipal
manifests. So we see in Lacan the three stages are recognized but the genetic order
is not the same as the mathematically motivated order.
Our finitude is based on our historical place within the socially constructed world
founded upon the basis of intersubjective non-dual relations between people. We
rise out of that primordial social soup to assert ourselves as individuals. We
maintain that illusion of our independence though the production of ideational
illusions that repress the variety production and the meta-systemic relation in which
we must engage to survive. If we looked though a glass bottomed boat down into
the sea of the social we would see the non-dual social fabric below the socially
constructed dualistic superstructure. We need to ground ourselves again in that
fabric by founding a non-dual social phenomenology that is the basis for exploring
autopoietic and reflexive sociology. Because these social relations can be simulated
it is possible to construct a computational sociology that produces the virtual hyper-
reality that Baudrillard speaks of as a Virtual Reality that mirrors the human social
formations in the opaque mirror of alien artificial intelligences. The computational
sociology refines the dualism that the social phenomenology attempts to go beyond
with its non-dualistic theorizing and social analysis. Between dualism and non-
dualism there lies the autopoietic and reflexive sociology which concentrates on
understanding the ultra-efficient special systems. This is the study of holonomics,
the ordering that is non-dualisically shared between logos and physus that is poised
between system and meta-system.
12. Epilogue
This series of working papers along with the companion pieces from the series On
The Social Construction Of Emergent Worlds records a wild ride and an intellectual
adventure. Ben Goertzel has called them “conceptual sculptures” differentiating
them from rigorous science. I think of them as the result of wild speculative inquiry
based on Heuristic Research. Here the form of working papers embody all the four
1126
kinds of Being in the process of the emergence of knowledge of the special systems
into our worldview. The working papers represent the tenuousness (of Process
Being), the discontinuities (or Hyper Being) and the wild eccentricities (or Wild
Being) within the frozen narrative (Pure Presence). Both series are the spin-offs of
my book project called The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The
Void. Basically that book establishes the philosophical ancestry of autopoietic
systems theory in the Laws of Plato. Many autopoietically structured myths are
explored and interpreted in the light of the basic tenets of autopoietic theory.
Through this work I discovered a lost possibility within the Western Philosophical
tradition that was lost when scholars and others concentrated on the Republic
instead of the Laws. the republic is the best city and the city of the Laws is said to
be the second best city. But the best city in which pure Communism reigns is
impossible for humans to live in and was fit only for the gods. In the second best
city Plato outlines how to build a city that will last as long as the Egyptian empires
and that city is based on the form of the autopoietic system. By learning about the
autopoietic system in its social form I became interested in the problem of
extending the autopoietic theory formally to encompass the social. These two series
of papers are that attempt which ended up with the analogies with the mathematical
objects as the means of understanding the difference between autopoietic and
socially reflexive special systems. Then when I returned to the mythological work I
found the stories leading up to the epic of Jason and the Argonauts had the same
structure differentiating between the purely autopoietic system (Aeolian Isle) and
the reflexive autopoietic system (Argos the talking ship). The genealogical lines
between the earlier nexus and the later mythic nexus show the breakup of the
autopoietic system and the reinstatement of the higher level reflexive autopoietic
system. But these myths, being brutally honest do not paint a completely rosy
picture of this process of breakup and renewal nor the aftermath of the marriage of
Jason and Medea.
Besides discovering that autopoietic and reflexive systems are a hidden possibility
within out own tradition I also discovered that these special systems can be a bridge
to the Chinese traditional scientific disciplines such as Acupuncture. The Chinese
looked on all phenomena as reflecting their own social structure and so thought of
them as autopoeitic and reflexive first before all other models are applied. Thus a
clear bridge can be built which allows us to understand traditional Chinese science
on the basis of the anomalous autopoietic theoretical position.
Having bridges for autopoietic theory back into our own tradition and also into the
1127
Chinese tradition helps us appreciate the lost sophistication of these traditional

cultures and their understanding of the world. Our crude misreadings that place us
highest on the scale of cultural evolution may have to be radically considered as we
realize that the point of view we are just now approaching of a non-dual way of
looking at the world is something that other cultures have long had and which they
have developed into a highly sophisticated way of looking at the things and states of
affairs in the world.
But beyond that we now see that there is an alternative way to construct a
sociological/psychological theory based on mathematical analogies like those used
by physics and other hard sciences. One part of mathematics for which little use
was found to hold the key to this analogy. And through the power of the analogy we
can predict many counter intuitive aspects of social and psychological theory that
we would have not expected before. We have shown that there is an emergent
ontological hierarchy that parallels the ontic phenomenal hierarchy. We have seen
that the difference between system and meta-system is very important. We have
located the dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive systems as holons poised between
system and meta-system. We have recognized the ultra efficacy of the special
systems and their other strange characteristics. We have recognized the
mathematical analogies between these special systems and the series hyper-
complex algebras. We have explored these analogies in may directions and are still
finding them giving rise to unexpected theoretical vistas. For instance, we see that
there is an analogy between superconductivity and the autopoietic special system
and that this has further analogies on the social level with what Sartre called the
fused group and what Cannetti called the pack but which today we call the
workteam that ‘clicks’. I have produced a tutorial on Work Process Engineering that
lays out the implication of non-dual theory and the ultra efficiency of the
autopoietic special systems for human teamwork.
I am in the process of trying to cover this ground again and make it more accessible
in a book called Holonomics: Between System And Meta-system. In that book
essentially the same territory will be covered but in a way that more people can
relate to. These working papers were meant to be flights of fantasy that would take
us to a new way of looking at things. They succeeded in that beyond my wildest
dreams. It has been an intellectual adventure of a life time and the culmination of
many years of study and research. I am very pleased that my studies on ontology
have paid off so handsomely with not just a new kind of philosophical ontological
position but a deeper understanding of the structuring of the way new things come
1128
into existence. They do not only pass the stages of the meta-levels of being on their
path of emerging from the void as I found in my Ph.D. dissertation (The Structure
Of Theoretical Systems In Relation To Emergence), but also those stages are
separated by the three special systems which give an important new understanding
to the structure of our world view. Those special systems allow the impossible to
occur in very special circumstances within our world. That impossibility is the
ultra-efficiency of superconductivity which is realized at the social level in resonant
states of the social fabric. It is the possibility of that impossibility as a rare actually
occurring eventity in existence that makes all the other relations between more
normal states of affairs possible. Thus our worldview is structured by the states that
it forces new things to pass through as they come into existence. And they are
forced into liminal states that are ultra efficient that only occur rarely but whose
possibility structures all of our normal existence. And exactly these same structures
appear in the earliest myths of the Greeks that inaugurate our worldview , so that
their rediscovery is also approach to the most ancient and fundamental essence of
our worldview through an understanding of the fragmentation of Being in the
context of the special systems that arises as the hinge between the system and the
meta-system.
13. Acknowledgments:
Would like to think Onar Aam (URL http://www.hsr.no/~onar) and Frank (Tony)
Smith (URL http://www.gatech.edu/TSmith) for their help in understanding the
deeper structures and implications of octonions. Onar Aam and I met of the
Autopoietic Discussion Group email list that was an off shoot of the Autopoiesis
Email list that I host. He was the first one to understand through his work as a
composer the importance of Wild Being. Later he read my papers in these two
series and began to correct my mathematical understanding of the quaternions and
octonions. Out of that he went on to create the first octonion fractal pictures with a
program he wrote. He then started studying the structure of the Octonion in earnest
and discovered the asymmetrical and mobius-like structure of its representations.
Onar contacted Tony Smith who is using the Octonion as a part of his Physical
Theory of Everything that is being pursued at the Georgia Tech Quantum
Mechanics and Relativity Research Center. This cooperation between physicists
and social scientists interested in the interpretation of the octonion in many different
realms that arose in our correspondence has led to many insights into the structure
and implications of this amazing and little studied mathematical object. We are still
trying to figure out how best to present the insights gleaned so far from this
1129
intellectual adventure. It is similar to the adventure of Watson and Crick who

discovered the structure o f DNA. Here we are looking at a theory about the inner
structure of the social/psychological realm based on mathematical analogies which
if they pan out will be noless important. Today we do not know the structure of the
social from any mathematical perspective. But on the basis of this work we have
discovered that one structure that has had little luck being applied to physical
phenomena may hold a promise for helping us to understand the structure of the
social and the living/cognitive or autopoietic. This discovery has been exciting and I
am looking forward to working with others to unfold its implications and attempt to
find ways to demonstrate its efficacy for comprehending the social emergent level
of existence. It has been a pleasure to work with Onar Aam, Ben Goertzel and Tony
Smith in the development of the different aspects of the ideas presented in these
papers and hope our collaboration will continue in the future.
Would like to thank Robert Wellman for his questions and comments on this paper
and my long book. Also I would like to thank Ian Dallas, my teacher and mentor.
Private conversations with Ben Goertzel contributed significantly to the thinking
behind this paper. Bob Cummings and Bruce Deitrich listened to the ideas
contained here many times, I appreciate their interest.
This is the fourth paper in a series of papers called STEPS TO THE THRESHOLD
OF THE SOCIAL. The other papers are available on request. For more information
see the DialogNet homepage http://dialog.net
END OF WORKING PAPER
Kent Palmer
PO Box1632, Orance CA 92856
714-633-9508
palmer@exo.com
Copyright 1995 Kent D. Palmer.
All Rights Reserved.
Not For Distribution.
Rough Draft Manuscript.
Draft#6 950717kdp CONTRA08.SPR
1130

PART 5: Laws of Form and Pattern, Magician Meta-
Systems, Matrix Logic, Special Systems Theory and Artificial
Sociality

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. The Problematic
Ben Goertzel has pointed out (in private correspondence) the connection between
the formalism of Laws of Form developed by G. Spencer Brown and his Magician
systems formalism. He has attempted various experiments using the Laws of Form
as a basic structure for the proving out of the ideas of magician systems. Magician
systems have three operators. These are annihilation, gestalt formation, and mutual
action. We can relate these to the Laws of Form by postulating that reduction of
formulas by using the laws of form equates to annihilation while reversing the laws
and using them to build up the formulas by complexifying the arguments amounts
to pattern formation. The theorems developed by Kauffmann and Varela can be
used to transform one pattern into another. Also Kauffmann has shown that no
formula needs to be more than two expressions deep in order to be unique. So we
can see the individual magicians made up of Laws of Form elements oscillating
between longer and shorter formulas based on their expansion or contraction using
the laws of form axioms to either add or reduce elements of the formulas. Further
we could imagine two such magicians interacting with each other, where each is
comprised of a formula from the Laws of Form (or more specifically the
Kauffmann and Varela version of it expressed in "Form Dynamics"). Because
formula have variables it is possible for the interaction of two formulas to be by
either substitution of variables or by conjunction. These two ways of interacting are
1133
based on the laws of form themselves that define repetition or layering as the two
basic ways elements can be related to each other. So mutual action would have four
possible outcomes based on the configuration of conjuncted formula from two
magicians or based on the placing of one formula into the variable embedded within
another formula. In this way we can see how the laws of form can represent the
basic operations of the magician system.
Figure 205:
Annihilation --- reduction via the axioms
Mutual Action --- substitution of formulas by conjunction or
insertion into variables
Pattern Formation -- by complexification of formula via the
axioms
Once this basic congruence between magicians and laws of form systems has been
identified then there are many ways to create simulations of the interaction of the
magicians in a swarm through the laws of form. Ben Goertzel has tried several
approaches to this but has not do date settled on one definitive embodiment of
magicians through the laws of form.
The problem we set for ourselves here is to look at this whole process of
embodying magicians swarms and attempt to bring more constraints into play in
order to develop an interesting simulatable model of magician systems that allows
them to be a model of artificial sociality. We want to be able to see the relation
between systems and meta-systems and also the role of the special (dissipative,
autopoietic, and reflexive) systems. We want to have a rigorous model that will
allow us to explore the whole context of normal, special, and meta-systems.
In order to accomplish this we will attempt to produce a link between laws of form
and August Stearn's MATRIX LOGIC. We will reinterpret laws of form in the
context of this higher logico-mathematical formalism. And we will venture
interpretations of many features of this strange and deviant logic showing how it is
an excellent example of a logic of showing and hiding and that its somewhat
features that go beyond traditional logic are mostly justified in the context of
showing and hiding processes.
Once we have developed a bridge between matrix logic and laws of form then we
will go on to show how magician meta-systems can be conceived of within the
constraints of this overarching formalism. We will go on to show how normal
general systems, special systems, and meta-systems play themselves out in the
1134
context of this new set of formalisms.
Finally the real problem will be to sketch the beginnings of a design for an
Artificial Sociology simulation based on these structures. Our goal is to establish
Computational Sociology and connect it with both Autopoietic Sociology on the
basis of reflexive special systems and with Social Phenomenology that takes the
non-dual field of the social as the foundation of all scientific investigation.
As a synopsis we will say that magician meta-systems can be identified with the
laws of form formalism and that two laws of form structures interact within the
matrix logic of showing and hiding. The level of the laws of form simulation of a
magician system is a model of the dissipative system. When we combine two laws
of form magician system we get an autopoietic structure under the auspices of
matrix logic. Finally August Stearn defines a hyper-logic beyond the matrix logic
and we will relate this to the level of the reflexive special system.
Figure 206:
Magician System = Laws of Form = Dissipative System
Dual Magician System = Matrix Logic = Autopoietic System
Quadruple Magician System = Hyper Matrix Logic = Reflexive System
Now it has been established already in one of these papers that we can relate the
different algebras associated with the special systems with the operators that make
up the magician system. So what we are seeing here is the dual definition that takes
the magician system and sees it in the context of the special systems. We have
turned the table on the magician system and instead of constituting it out of the
special systems instead we are seeing the magician system operating in a field
defined by the special system.
It is important to keep this in mind. We are working with the dual formulation of
the inner relation between the magician system and the special systems. If the
production of the operators by the special system was the internal coherence of the
magician system then the looking at the magician system in the context of the laws
of form, matrix logic and hyper-matrix logic is the external coherence of the
magician system.
2. Truth values
Spencer-Brown makes one fatal mistake in LAWS OF FORM. He relates the

through value null or void to false. This is an source of endless confusion. Spencer-
1135
Brown was striving for the simplest and most elegant formalism to express his
proto-boolean system. In so doing he reduced to a single mark that alone or
combined with other marks expressed his system. Those marks which look like
upside down Ls are two dimensional and so can express two information
dimensions simultaneously. A further improvement he made was to use the
background itself of the symbol as a sign. So when there is no mark there is only the
background.
The laws of form can be expressed thus:
(()) = " " or 0

()() = ()
When just the background is meant we will write "0" for null and void.
The opposite axioms not used by Spencer-Brown will be called the Laws of Pattern
and will be expressed as follows:
(()) = ()
()() = " " or 0
Instead of thinking metaphysically about the null as the void as Spencer-Brown is

known to do we will instead consider it as a blank place on a tape. This is to say it is
a memory location that is left unmarked.
In what follows we will be using turing machines as our model of magician

systems with the difference that instead of infinite tapes we will instead have
expandable mobius strips as tapes. This allows us to introduce non-duality into the
argument in a concrete way and also allows us for a concrete interpretation of
matrix logic. So a null element will be an empty or unmarked place on a mobius
turing machine tape.
We will note along with Manthey (Information Mechanics) that turing machines
have implicit synchronization mechanisms between their state machines and their
tape reader/writers which are normally not mentioned. But these semaphores will be
important to are argument as they are themselves marks or empty places outside
1136
either the state machine or the tape of the turing machine.
Finally we will consider that these tape machines may switch between the Boolean
laws of form axioms and the laws of pattern axioms. In fact, it is clear that it is only
through oscillating between laws of form and laws of pattern that it is possible to
have complete intertransformability between all the elements defined by the laws of
form axioms.
Figure 207:
multiplicity or repetition -> ()()
layering -> (())
something -> ()
nothing -> 0
Figure 208:
F P F P
()() -> () -> (()) -> 0 -> ()()
()() <- () <- (()) <- 0 <- ()()
So there must be at least one semaphore which indicates whether laws of form or
laws of pattern is in force at any one point in time. We will assume that these
semaphore for the transition between laws of form and pattern may be as many as
needed.
Tape machines may have multiple state machines and multiple tapes. So the
number of semaphores coordinating the reading and the operation of the state
machines may be many.
Now what we want to do is get a picture of the relation between laws of form/
pattern truth values and the truth values of Matrix Logic. Matrix logic was created
by August Stearn by combining normal logic and matrix math. Basically Stearn has
defined a new meta-logic at the next higher threshold of complexity beyond normal
traditional logic. This new meta-mathematico-logic has many unusual features that
will be interpreted as we move through our analysis. Here we are only concerned
with the truth values. Matrix Logic in its simplest form has only four truth values.
Figure 209:
00 neither true nor false
10 true
01 false
11 both true and false
1137
These are the basic truth values of Indian logic which unlike western logic does not
accept the principle of the excluded middle.
The way to think about this is in terms of para-consistency and para-completeness.

Something is para-consistent if it is not completely decidable. Something is para-
complete if it is not completely distinguishable. So in a para-consistent system it is
possible to have active contradictions of the type that appear in Zeno's paradoxes
and have been developed at various times in the Western tradition. The truth value
11 Both allows para-consistency of active contradiction. Its opposite is the 00 of
neither true nor false which we might call para-inconsistency. Para-completeness
enters into the truth values by using fuzzy numbers between 0 and 1 instead of the
end points of this spectrum. This allows indeterminateness as well as indecidablitiy
to enter into our picture of truth giving some leeway between absolute truth and
falsehood.
In matrix logic truth is expressed in bra <tt| and ket |tt> vectors. These vectors
following normal matrix mathematics are orthogonal to each other. Matrix
operations need to operate on both bra and ket truth vectors. In other words matrix
operations are between orthogonal mobius tapes. On these tapes one value is written
on one side and the other value is written on the other side. The vector looks at both
sides of the tape instead of just one side.
We can, following this interpretation, see how the laws of form/pattern fit into the
matrix logic mold. The laws of form/pattern marks are equivalent to truth in matrix
logic. So the basic truth values equate to the following:
Figure 210:
1,1 both sides of the mobius tape marked
1,0 only bottom of mobius tape marked
1,0 only top of the mobius tape marked
0,0 neither side of the mobius tape marked
Because we have mobius tapes there is an additional complication. The mobius

tape really means that both sides of the tape are "really" globally the same side. We
extend the tape by expanding the mobius strip rather than adding something onto
the end as in the infinite turing tape model. But because there is a twist in the tape
there is the problem of the unavailability of positions on the tape. So we have
another truth value that can appear in our truth vector called -1. Stearn derives this
other truth value from the matrix operations within the logic. But what we
1138
immediately notice is that these new truth operations allow us to simulate a showing
and hiding system. In other words the negative truth value -1 is equivalent to a
"hidden" state of affairs. So we now have the following new truth vectors:
Figure 211:
-1, 1 top side obscured other side marked
-1, 0 top side obscured other side unmarked
0,-1 bottom side obscured other side marked
1,-1 bottom side obscured other side unmarked
-1,-1 Both sides obscured
Think of the game we play with children of showing and hiding of things from
behind our back in our closed hand. This system has exactly this set of truth values.
Figure 212:
0,0 Nothing in either hand (negative trick)
1,1 Something in both hands (positive trick)
1,0 Something in left hand, nothing in right hand
0,1 Noting in left hand, nothing in right hand
-1, 1 Left hand hidden behind back, something in right hand
-1, 0 Left hand hidden behind back, nothing in right hand
1,-1 Something in left hand, right hand hidden behind back
0,-1 Nothing in left hand, right hand hidden behind back
-1,-1 Both hands hidden behind back
The truth values are a complete expression of the possibilities of this showing and
hiding guessing game. The game itself expresses the possibilities of handedness.
The game itself has illusory continuity of pure presence as long as the child is
distracted by it. The game is however a process in which one is constantly getting
something new, placing it in one or both hands or not and then presenting a choice
to the child who then chooses and gets or does not get the prize. Each play is
separated by a repeated instance of the game and the variety is in all the different
possibilities. If you want to reward the child regardless of their choice you play a
positive trick. If you want to punish the child regardless of their choice you play a
negative trick on them. Otherwise the variety comes from the success of guessing
which hand it is in if one is offered. Normally both hands are hidden between
games. However, if the child discovers that the game is rigged they may hold onto
one hand as you place the other hand behind your back. They use the fact that one
or both hands may be hidden to explore the constraints of the game whereas the one
offering the choice uses the ability for both hands to be hidden to exchange the
1139
contents of the hands. So Hyper-Being appears as the element of discontinuity

between the games, but also as the sinister side of the game in which positive and
negative tricks can be played. In such games the sinister side is the hidden intention
of the one offering the choice who can use the structure of showing and hiding to
manipulate the one making the choices. Wild Being appears in the interaction
between the players as they hold or resist the holding of hands of the one offering
the choices. It also appears in the variety of things used in the game. Usually it is
candy or money but there could be a whole changing variety of things offered as
choices. Like tic tac toe this is a game which is very simple and is played only to
create the interactional situation between the players. In that situation we fall into a
micro trance that gives us relief from some dualistic situation. Thus the purpose of
the game is to take us through the four meta-levels of handedness which express on
aspect of our animality (finiteness). The game summarizes our construction of the
world as a complex showing and hiding gestalt. In dealing with each other within
the world we must be familiar with the different kinds of Being and be able to
construct small models of that within our social interaction. The game and its truth
values perfectly express the showing and hiding social situation and gives us a basic
model for constructing mutual actions within the world.
We want to go beyond matrix logic however to add one more truth value beyond
those which August Stearn offers. This truth value is the imaginary number. We
know that -1 is a singularity in the Real number line that produces imaginary
numbers with its square root is taken. Imaginary numbers are orthogonal to real
numbers. What we note is that not all tapes can interact within the space of
interacting turing machines. Imaginary numbers represent places that are related to
other tapes or inaccessible due to the action of other tapes. We should know that in
laws of form proto-imaginary values *i* and *j* arise at the trace level when we
allow re-entry to laws of form formula. Here we posit that these neither true nor
false values may appear as special markings to either side of the tape which is made
inaccessible either to itself or by some other tape. We will talk about this as
intersections of tapes with each other or with themselves.
We use the imaginary truth values to construct the concept of interfering

interacting tapes. And this naturally extends to our concept of the timestreams
supported by complexnion, quaternion, and octonion algebras that will allow
intertransformability between timestreams or illusory continuities. There are kinds
of tapes that only exist in conjunction. A value on one of those tapes may be seen as
imaginary by another orthogonal tape which is being read in conjunction with it.
1140
If we add imaginary marking values then we have constructed a Greimas square of

extreme truth values:
Figure 213:
i, i both interfering
-1,-1 both hidden
1, 1 both full
0, 0 both empty
This new imaginary extreme of truth also introduces several new intermediary
values not considered by Stearn
Figure 214:
1, i
0, i
-1, i
i, 1
i, 0
i,-1
So there are now 16 truth values in all. And the space of differentiated truth values
has become very complex with 12 chiasmic intermediary possibilities. Once we
have extended the truth values to i then it is easy to imagine introducing j & k of the
quaternions and the I, J, K, E of the octonions. In fact, we now have a stable
structure from which to extended the Greimas square of truth values as we have in
the last essay to realize the internal structure of the dialectic that is hidden within
the Greimas square of the extreme truth values.
What is good about this way of looking at truth values is that the proto-imaginarires
*i* and *j* can be expressed directly in this structure in the relation between
orthogonal mobius tapes instead of just as the an implicit trace within the oscillating
formula structures. _ An important point that must
be made here is that the | mark is two dimensional and that it expresses the relation
between process being and pure presence in its own orthogonality. This is to say
that the mark's embedding of other marks is a process that is different from its mere
positionality which relates to its pure presence within the chain of signifiers. When
we introduce the ability to hyperlink between different positions in the formula
structure then we explicitly introduce the representation of Hyper Being. The place
Wild Being comes into the structure is in the production of more signs or the
reduction of signs within using the axioms. Beyond that Wild Being is not
particularly located by the notational conventions as are the other forms of Being.
1141
Now the thing about a mobius strip is that it is a two dimensional surface. So it
would be possible to write marks of the kind Spencer-Brown has created on this
surface together with the overhanging of marks including other marks. We never
have to write marks more than two levels deep in order to have a unique formula as
Kauffman shows. So each place the horizontal part of the mark comes down is a
memory location that is either marked or unmarked. But parallel to the other edge
of the strip the overhanging vertical portion of the mark can extend any number of
places covering other marks. Empty places can also be covered in this overhanging.
Then we can also see that the traces which give access to variables or empty spaces
within the marking structure can allow us to hyperlink in a specific order around
within the formula structure. Note that these hyperlinks could be represented by the
horizontal components of the marks on the other side of the mobius tape. So tape
memory locations are not just little squares that hold bits. Instead each memory
location is tied to others by its ability to have an overhanging mark that connects to
it. Further the trace level marks can be denoted using the other side of the tape so
that there are explicit and implicit connectives between marks. Notice how much
this is like a printed circuit board which can have crossing lines going on opposite
sides of the board. Since each side could act as the implicit trace structure for the
other we can see how there is a possibility of interesting interactions as tape
positions on one side of the tape slide past those on the other side of the tape as the
mobius tape expands and contracts. We can perhaps relate this realignment
possibility to Wild Being and then we can see all the element of the fragments of
Being represented in the mobius tape.
When two tapes are brought into conjunction with each other then that is when the
imaginary tape values arise from an external point of view where as internally it is
from the conjunction of the two sides of the same tape and the incarnation of the
proto-imaginaries *i* and *j* that appears in the oscillatory patterns.
In order to transition from the marked tape to the state machine part of the turing
machine then it is necessary to introduce a coding system that interprets the marks
on the tape and turns them into a programming language that is at least expressed in
a state machine minimal method. What we would like to do instead is apply what
we have learned about the minimal methods of software design and their
embodiments to develop a turing machine formalism that would allow any real-time
system to be emulated. What we know from Manthey's analysis is that turing
machine mathematicians are obsessed with halting problems. But many real time
systems are produced not to halt. So halting problems are just a small subset of the
1142
kinds of problems we need our computing mechanisms to approach. So what we

need is a formalism that embodies all the viewpoints on the real time system and all
the minimal methods that connect those viewpoints. This formalism already exists
as the Integral Software Engineering Methodology what was presented in the
Software Engineering Foundations series of working papers.
If we are going to program our turing machines with their mobius tapes then we
need to express the design and programming formalism that addresses the
expansion of turing machines into the realm of real time system. Living systems are
do not halt except in death. So if we are going to attempt to simulate autopoietic
systems we need to design turing machines that do not halt but keep working until
they are stopped.
3. An Implementation
Mobius turning machines give us good means for realizing laws of form as a
programming language. As explained above we postulate that the mobius tape is
written on with the marks of the laws of form symbolism. But we start this by
assuming that the tape is divided into places. Each place is connected to every other
place by the horizontal component of the mark. This means that each place must
have a subscript which allows it to index every other place. The single mark thus
plays both the role of marking a place but also indexing another place if it
overhangs other marks. In my paper “Software Ontology” of the Software
Engineering Foundations series it was shown that computer hardware was based on
pointing (index registers) and grasping (accumulators). And by that means it
embodied the two kinds of Being that Heidegger talks about in Being And Time
(Pure Presence or present-at-hand and Process Being or ready-to-hand). It is
because of this that software can have the kind of Being called Hyper-Being. This
kind of Being appears as the trace structure of discontinuous hops in laws of form.
Spencer-Brown draws these as arcs that go from point to point in a formula giving it
a recursive or iterative structure which can represent wave-like phenomena. It is out
of these jumps that the trace level is represented. With the mobius formulation we
use the other side of the strip to record the jump structure. It is recorded by using
marks where the vertical component indicates the direction of the jump and the
horizontal component represents the part of the formula on the other side of the tape
that is skipped. So when we use the other side of the tape as the control structure for
executing the formula on the from of the tape we realize the encoding of the jump
structure.
1143
We assume that all places on either side of the tape are always aligned. We assume
that there is an expand and contract operation on the tape that will increase the
number of places either by scrunching places or actually physically expanding the
tape. We assume that there is a special start code in one place on the tape. Other
important codes are as follows:
Figure 215:
_Meta-symbols_
* Start
# Boot section end
@ program section
^ sub-program section
% state machine section
& data section
$ end data object
! end of section
= end identifier
+ variable end
Figure 216:
*()(())((()))0()0(())#%()()00(())000()!
start with boot section and state machine part.
Figure 217:
@00=()(())((()))()()((()))^()0=(())0()0()()(())^0()=(())()00()0
function with sub functions
Various sections of the tape are marked with special symbols that will allow them to
be found. So for instance the turing machine will take an inserted tape and will
always read to the start symbol first. Then it will execute the boot section that exists
at from the start symbol to the boot section end symbol. The boot section may read
a state machine from the tape if this is a universal turing machine. Or it may end by
jumping to a program section that will work on a data section. All program and sub-
program sections begin with an identifier which is the function name. A series of
program sections may compose an endless loop of a realtime system. Likewise all
data objects have identifiers. Following Manthey we can say that a given turing
machine may have several sensors and actuators besides the tape reader. The tape
reader is only one kind of sensor/actuator mechanism and we can imagine many
others. The purpose of a real time system is to make things happen or sense the
happening of things in particular points in spacetime. to do this it will need multiple
sensors and actuators depending on the application which are protected by a
semaphore from the state machine just like the tape reader.
1144
For structured programming we need only three constructs:

Figure 218:
Sequence
Selection
Iteration
If then
The sequence operation is produced by reading the tape from a start symbol to an
end symbol.
The selection operation occurs when we jump to a name such as the program and
subprogram names. The same can be said for data objects. Data objects can have
embedded operations (sub-programs) which we can select from. Selection is
performed by a search of the tape for the identifier. The selection operators can also
be implemented with jumps as follows:
Figure 219:
_______________________________________________
_____________________________________ |
_____________________________ | |
_______________ | | |
________ | | | |
___ | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
() ()() ()()() A()() B((())) C()()(())
A B C
The if...then needs to be implemented with jumps on the opposite side of the tape.
Basically this appears as one marker that sections off the condition from another
that points to the jump spot if the condition is true and another that points to the
jump spot if the condition is false. It would look like this
Figure 220:
_______________________________________
____________________ |
____________ | |
| | |
| | |
if then else
()((()))() ()(())(((()))) ()()((()))()((()))
An iteration or a while loop can have the following form:

Figure 221:
1145
______________________________________________
________________ |
_______ | |
| | |
| | |
()()() ()()(())((())) ()(())(((())))
number iterated function go to
of
iterations
Figure 222:
_____________________________________________
___________________________ |
_______________ | |
_______ | | |
| | | |
| | | |
()(()) ()() ()(())((())) ()(())()(())
while and not iterated goto
this that function
There must also be a coding of laws of form marks into higher level constructs. We
will use braces to denote coded marks as opposed to non-coded marks.
Figure 223:
{()()} = A
{()0} = B
{0()} = C
{00} = D
This is the Boolean permutation of 2^2. Other permutations would be similarly

obtained by enclosing the Boolean marks in braces. But we will use symbols rather
than writing out Boolean marks that would only appear in the compiled version of
the code for the mobius turing machine.
Of interest is that the Boolean coding goes in two directions due to the two
dimensionality of the marks. So we can also have a coding for depth:
Figure 224:
{()()} = A
{(())()} = B
{()(())} = C
{(())(())} = D
These two codings can be combined together for a modula three coding scheme as
well.
1146
Figure 225:
{()()} = A
{()(())} = B
{()0} = C
{(())()} = D
{(())(())} = E
{(())0} = F
{0()} = G
{0(())} = H
{00} = I
We do not need to be concerned with the coding but will represent the mobius
turing machine in a higher level language that assumes the coding and the hardware
that knows how to decode the coding.
Figure 226:
START
BEGIN BOOT
END BOOT
BEGIN PROGRAM id
END PROGRAM id
PROGRAM id LINE id statement
BEGIN SUBPROGRAM id
END SUBPROGRAM id
SUBPROGRAM id LINE id statement
BEGIN MACHINE id
END MACHINE id
MACHINE id EVENT id INSTATE id TOSTATE id ACTION id
BEGIN DATA id
END DATA id
DATA id VARIABLE expression
IDENTIFIER IS id
SEQUENCE IS id id id id id id
ITERATION expression PROGRAM id TIL expression GOTO id
WHILE expression PROGRAM id GOTO id
CASE expression DO id PROGRAM id DO id PROGRAM id END CASE
This is an outline of a minimal language built around the meta-symbols outlined

above. What is interesting is that once one has abstracted to the language level we
have completely disengaged from the mobius turing machine underlying
architecture so there is a radical break at the point where we institute the translation
between underlying assembly language to a higher order language. That higher
order language could in fact be almost anything. This break at the point where a
compiler is instituted is similar to the break where we institute coding. The
1147
language representation is arbitrary as is the coding. We note that it is by the coding

that we get to the elements of the language (i.e. the ASCII code) and then by
instituting a compiler we completely abstract from the mobius turing machine
architecture so that we could imagine any computational infrastructure underlying
our higher order language. In fact we might as run our language on a regular
computer.
Figure 227:
Laws of Form -- information infrastructure could be Boolean
CODING -- arbitrary giving rise to endless variety
Mobius Turing Machine -- pointing and grasping infrastructure
LANGUAGE -- arbitrary giving rise to endless variety
Design elements expressed as minimal methods -- viewpoints
REQUIREMENTS -- arbitrary giving rise to endless variety
Gelertner notes three basic concepts that have to do with programming language to
which we add the obvious algorithmic nature of programming languages.
Figure 228:
SELF-DESCRIPTION -- we can write a compiler in the language
itself
NAMING -- we fill in the names of objects as we build constructs
XXXXXXX
ALGORITHMIC -- basic structured programming constructs exist
Gelertner uses a spacetime framework to look at the differences in structure of

languages.
Language exists at the meta-meta-system level. It is the basis for projecting

domains within the world.
[Is the characteristics of language aligned with the special systems?]
Programming Languages are very different from Linguistic Languages.

Programming languages exist within the realm of handedness set up by the kinds of
Being and they have no access to meaning where as Linguistic languages have refer
to meaning. Linguistic languages go beyond the realm of handedness and receive
meaning directly from beyond the void and facilitate its articulation. These are very
different purposes that should not be confused. In one case languages are the
vehicle for embodying design elements of real time systems in a particular pointing
and grasping context (like mobius turing machines or any general purpose computer
architecture). In the other case we are going beyond the meta-system not toward
1148
embodiment but toward the effervescence of meaning that appears from out of
nowhere (i.e. the void).
But in either case arbitrariness enters into the production of letters and of words as
well as in the construction of the relation of syntax and semantics in the emergent
grammars. So we soon realize that our construction of mobius turing machines is
inessential when we move to the higher emergent level of language because once
we specify the language we can forget the exact nature of the computing device that
the higher order language maps to. This is somewhat frustrating because we loose
all the advantages of the elegance of computing with mobius turing machines using
the laws of form. The laws of form embody both pointing and grasping
simultaneously in a single mark. Using the mobius strip gives us an elegant picture
of non-duality and allows us to see how the laws of form relate to matrix logic. We
can use the back side to record the trace information that allows us to turn laws of
form into an algorithmic procedural construct. And we can imagine mobius turing
machines that have multiple tapes and multiple state machines. But as soon as we
go though coding and create a language based on the codes then we disengage from
the computing platform entirely and move to another level which is for all intents
and purposes independent of the pointing and grasping and trace structure of the
hardware.
4. Information Embeddings and the Laws of Form
We will not repeat here our results with respect to the four viewpoints on real-time
systems and the construction of the minimal methods. For this see the papers in the
Software Engineering Foundations series or our summary in Software Engineering
Design Methodologies And General Systems Theory. The point that we are making
here is that once we have a programming language covering our mobius turing
machine then we can think of implementing any design element that can be
described via the sixteen minimal methods described in the Integral Software
Engineering Methodology. A turing machine becomes a means of executing
functions and each machine or each individual thread within that machine becomes
a kind of agent. So the mobius turing machine becomes the locus for satisfying both
the agency and functional viewpoints within a spacetime context. That spacetime
context is represented from a design point of view by events and data.
As has been said before we can think of the mobius tapes as instead light tapes that
also act as communication channels between mobius turing machines. So it is
1149
possible to place the computational scenario within a relativistic spacetime

environment merely by rethinking the medium of the mobius strips. We can think
of the transversal wave of light as the two sides of the mobius strip that are
intimately bound to each other. Once we have opened up our universal turing
machines to interaction with other turing machines via light channels then we can
consider their exchanging images of each other and setting up protocols between
themselves that allow them to become a single computing device. An
agglomeration of turing machines reduces to a turing machine, ultimately. But this
fact should alert us to the fact that something strange is going on. The turing
machines have the same additive properties as the the special systems. The fact that
we do not get any higher order construct by adding turing machines together should
alert us that turing machines are strange beasts. Many is the same as having one.
Once synchronization occurs the multiple turing machines are locked together. You
can see this if you connect two independent petri nets. Either they stop due to a
conflict or they enter into lock step synchronization. There is no middle ground. So
similarly the special systems can either be two separate things or a single thing. The
two alternatives are a matter of point of view. Similarly we can see a myriad of
unsynchronized turing machines or if they synchronize they can be seen as a single
turing machine or myriad synchronized turing machines. It does not matter if they
are synchronized. However, since there is no global clock synchronization is not a
black and white phenomena. All synchronizations must occur within a relativistic
framework. Which is to say that different turing machines in different relativistic
frames of reference have a chiasmic relation to each other.
What we want to concentrate on here is the fact already shown which is that the
four different embodiments of event and data in spacetime when combined together
in pairs give the embodiments of the minimal methods. Those embodiments are as
follows:
Figure 229:
Information flow
Information network
Global states with local arrows
Local arrows with global states
We will not repeat the proof that the minimal methods are pairs of embodiments
and that all four embodiments represent a turing machine. What is of interest is that
there should be three dimensional methods that give a new view of the design.
These three dimensional methods should be dissipative in that one embodiment is
1150
ordering the other two dimensional method. These three dimensional methods have
yet to be identified. The difficulty is that it is impossible to reconstruct the method
from the embodiment. We need some other approach to make it possible for us to
discover what these three dimensional methods might be like. All of our current
minimal methods are two dimensional. The turing machine itself is four
dimensional. The tape is one two dimensional and the state machine is two
dimensional and when they are not identical -- i.e. when computation can occur
then we have the intersection of two planes which is three dimensional. Between
the state-machine and the tape it is necessary to have a semaphore (as Manthey
points out) and that takes us into a fourth dimension.
But let us think for a moment about the embodiments. And let us note their
similarity to the laws of form. The information flow and network embodiments are
linear. In information flow we watch how information flows through two different
variables. In information networking we watch how information flows between
variables. In both cases we are looking at a reduction of different variables to the
same information. In one case the information is about difference and in the other it
is information about the similarity of the information that is flowing.
Figure 230:
()() = ()
multiplicity = unitary
two variables separated
difference in information
two variables linked in linear ordering
sameness of information
Similarly we can talk about the relation between global and local states and
transitions. This relationship implies the nesting we see in the other law of form
(()) = 0
This law of form negates the importance of layering. But we note that every
software design must have layers of abstraction. We have already seen these in the
introduction of meta-symbols, coding, and compilers in the last section. Laws of
form reduces this layering to nothing. Laws of pattern (the opposite of the laws of
form) considers them something rather than nothing. Laws of pattern leads us
toward a different universe where layering not multiplicity rules. But note how
whether it is discounted or not there is a similarity here between the layering and the
ideas of the relation between global and local states and transitions. We can take
1151
views of systems that only take into account information flows and networks. But
such a view discounts design. What the ability to layer allows us to do is to have
different abstract layers within the design. Essentially each of these layers allow for
an arbitrary recoding with respect to the lower level and this allows a restructuring
at each new design level. A view that concentrates on the layers of design artifacts
tends to discount the interaction between design elements. It is more functional
while the other is more agency oriented.
So it is possible to see the four embodiments of event and data as the nexus of the
laws of form and the laws of pattern.
It is clear that when we combine the different aspects of the laws of form/pattern
(multiplicity, layering, something, nothing) then we would get our minimal
methods and when we combine any three we should get the three dimensional
design alternative methods which are dissipative. Finally when we combine all the
different aspects together we would get the embodiment of the turing machine.
Figure 231:
repetition |
layering | Laws of Form or Laws of Pattern
nothing | Dual formalisms
something |
repetition/layering | state machine (mapping tentative)

repetition/nothing | darts
repetition/something | petri nets
layering/nothing | dataflow
layering/something | virtual layered machine
nothing/something | mapping
repetition => layering/nothing | D \___ A \

layering => nothing/something | D / > R
nothing => something/repetition | D \___ A /
something => repetition/layering | D /
repetition/layering/nothing/something = turing machine
Note that there are four dissipative systems. Each autopoietic system is two
dissipative systems combined. Each reflexive system is two autopoietic systems and
thus four dissipative systems combined. This the layer just below the turing
machine is the model of the special systems. Special systems are embedded within
the turing machine. Beneath these are the minimal methods which are two
1152
dimensional slices of the turing machine. Then the embodiments are one
dimensional slices of the turing machine which is equivalent to the aspects of the
laws of form.
This gives us a very interesting view of the inner workings of the turing machine. It
attempts to create illusory continuity and as such is an embodiment of the four kinds
of Being. But they are all hidden within it and all we really see is the pure presence
of the illusory continuity. However, once we see the three dimensional dissipative
systems within the turing machine then the different kinds of Being become
separated out as we distinguish the different special systems. Then when we move
from the realm of dissipative systems to normal systems we see the minimal
methods appear as two dimensional slices of turing machines. Finally we reduce to
the level of embodiments which are once dimensional aspects of the relation of
information to spacetime.
So now we have a basic understanding of the relation between the laws of form/
pattern to the embodiments and have build up from those to the turing machine
through the states of the minimal methods and the special systems. This gives us a
discrete computational architecture within which the turing machine represents the
purely present system. The dissipative systems define the substrate of ideation that
creates the illusory continuity of the purely present ideational representation of the
system. The minimal methods embody the duality of the meta-systematic shadow of
the system. And the embodiments in spacetime give a connection between the
information and its actualization which relates directly to the aspects of the laws of
form/pattern.
Now when we say that the magician system is equivalent to the laws of form we are
really building up one of the dual formalisms based on a certain combination of
embodiments. But because we are excluding the laws of pattern connection we are
not getting a complete interworking of these elements so we are basically only
rising to the level of the minimal system representations. In other words the
exclusion of the laws of pattern from consideration in the relating of the aspects of
the laws of form takes us to a representation of the meta-system and we know that
magician systems are representations of the meta-system also. When we allowed
the laws of pattern and we doubled the application of the laws of form to both sides
of the mobius strips we allowed our representation to move up to the level of the
system. In that we skipped the level at which the dissipative systems appear which
exist as combinations of three spacetime embodiments of information. Now we
1153
have posited that the combination of laws of form systems in pairs allows us to
create an autopoietic system based on matrix logic. This combination would bring
us up from the meta-system (minimal methods) level to the dissipative system level
of our hierarchy. Within that level we could also see the reflexive system embodied
in terms of the hyper matrix logic. All this occurs under the umbrella of the turing
machine that has all four information embodiments.
So what we see is that the turing machine which produces illusory continuity in
pure presence is deceptively simple. Hidden within it is an extremely complex
embodiment of the special systems. This complex embodiment is what we would
like to bring out and model using laws of form, matrix logic, and hyper matrix logic
as the formalism by which this is accomplished. All the time we are realizing the
three dimensional design methods that are hidden in this layer and should be more
efficient than two dimensional design methods that we now use. And finally all this
is based on the analogy between the laws of form aspects and the possible
embeddings of information in spacetime.
Our hypothesis is that matrix logic arises at a very special threshold of logico-
mathematical complexity. It in fact obviates Godel's proof that is the bugaboo for
all logico-mathematical systems. Basically Godel proves that given a set of axioms
(Firsts) there are theorems that you cannot decide whether they are inside or outside
the system. So there is a basic undecidability build into every formal logico-
mathematical system of anything but trivial complexity. But what Godel does not
take into account is para-consistency and para-completeness. These two limits can
be incorporated into our formal logico-mathematical system so that the problems of
Godel's proof are no longer the same kind of problem they are when we rigorously
attempt to exclude undecidability and indistinctness. It has already been explained
how Matrix logic includes both para-consistency and para-completeness through
using truth vectors and allowing Both and Neither as values as does Indian logic.
And indistinctness is handled by making truth values fuzzy. So Matrix logic sits at a
peculiar point of complexity in our building of logico-mathematical systems where
the problems singled out by Godel have been incorporated directly into our
formalism. It also is exactly at the point where matrix mathematics and logic can be
made to intersect with the creation of many interesting and counter intuitive
features that must be added to logic such as the negative logic.
So matrix logic and its extension into hyper-logic arise appear right at the point
where the dissipative methods appear in our hierarchy. We have shown already how
1154
matrix logic encompasses laws of form as a logical system once we have corrected
the problem about null equaling the void. Matrix logic has several forbidden
operations which block complete intertransformability of logical values. But the
hyper logic allows these blockages to be overcome. So Matrix logic gives the same
kind of rotational freedom that the four dimensional rotations embodied in the
quaternion and octonion give us. This extra grease intruding into entropic spacetime
is an anomaly which is well hidden inside the turing machine. It signals an ultra
efficiency hidden within the plodding calculation equipment of the turing machine.
This ultra-efficiency only appears under special circumstances as the turing
machine breaks up prior to the appearance of the minimal two dimensional methods
or the final fragmentation into embodiments of information in spacetime as
spinnors.
The problem we have is to show exactly how the oscillation between the
fragmentation into pieces and the wholeness of the turing machine occurs.
Metaphysically we can appeal to Empedocles who was the first to hypothesize such
an oscillating model. It is an oscillation that attempts to have change and
changelessness alternately rather than simultaneously as Plato's stranger would
have preferred having them. The changeless is here the purely present whole system
while the changeable is the fragmented Firsts of embodied information fragments.
The intertransformability between the system and the meta-system going through
the stages at which the special systems manifest is an important problem to be
solved. It is unclear that there is any direct route for the solvability of this transform.
There are transformations like that from 2^6 to 4^3 which is possible to solve. But it
could be that there is some form of block to the solution of this intertransformability
between systems and meta-systems or wholes and their parts.
5. Laws of Form and Pattern and the Ontological Fourfold
We have spoken about the four aspects of laws of form (multiplicity/repetition,

layering, something, nothing) in the last section and noted its relation to the four
kinds of spacetime embedding of information. Perhaps it would be a good idea to
explore for a moment exactly what these four aspects mean in relation to each other.
It should be noted that the appearance of something out of the back ground of no-
thing is not a trivial event. In fact all ontology is bound up in that event. And in fact
we posit that this emergence of something out of the background of no-thing is an
emergent event. As an emergent event all the four kinds of being must be passed
1155
through on its way into the clearing of being from the void. And these different
kinds of being are separated by the special systems so that the thing only appears on
the basis of the prior emergence of the special systems out of the meta-system. In
laws of form the thing is thought in terms of its form or outline as defined by a
formal system. Laws of form purports to be the simplest possible formal system
which is an algebra of outlines. Laws of form has embedded within it the
assumptions of transcendence which appears as the rule that recrossing a boundary
yields nothing. In other words only transcendent relations exist within the laws of
form and two transcendent relations cancel each other. This is a way of appealing to
ontological monism (cf. M.Henry Essence Of Manifestation) because there is only
one transcendent relation allowed. But what is allowed is repetition of forms. But
repeated forms are equal to the original form so we have an idealism of forms which
mirrors the normal assumptions within the western tradition. Different repetitions of
the same form are distinguished by marks, if distinguished at all, and these
diacritical marks become the basis for a structuralist view when we realize the
relation between these signs and the symbol of the form. So laws of form allows the
basis for a structuralism to be assumed. But in the book Laws Of Form itself
Spencer-Brown stops at the point where time appears so that no structuralism is
created. Structuralism is the way formal systems handle time.
The laws of form display three kinds of Being. It displays Pure Presence and
Process Being fused in its marks. The positional vertical component of the mark
relates to Pure Presence while the horizontal overhanging component of the mark
represents Process Being. Hyper-Being is represented by the ability to jump from
one part of the formula to another that gives rise to the proto-imaginaries *i* and
*j*. Wild Being is not explicitly represented in the laws of form except perhaps as
the excluded element of time. The mixture of continuity and discontinuity does not
seem to be possible within the formalism that Spencer-Brown proposes.
Figure 232:
|
M A R K |
|
| positions equal Pure Presence
Figure 233:
________________
Overhang equals continuity or Process Being
1156
Figure 234:
_ _ _ _
| | | _ |
\_____/|
jump equals Hyper Being
The best we can say is that the whole mobius tape with marks on both sides equals
a rhizome of continuity and discontinuity.
However if we depart from the laws of form and take into consideration the laws of
pattern and treat the four different aspects as independent then we get a different
picture. The we see that besides the repetition or multiplicity that gives us
structuralism there is the possibility of layering which is denied in the laws of form
but affirmed in laws of pattern. Laws of pattern instead denies repetition.
We can look at it this way. Given something we can either see it in relation to
repetitions of itself or we can look within it to see layerings where it is mirrored
within itself. When we think of it this way we see another strange thing about laws
of form which is that it seems to embody exactly what we have discovered with the
special systems.
Figure 235:
(i)(j) = (k) or (j)(i) = -(k)
(j)(k) = (i) or (k)(j) = -(i)
(k)(i) = (j) or (i)(k) = -(j)
This formula can be seen to be an expression of the quaternionic level that appears
with the autopoietic special system. Notice that under this interpretation what the
law is stating is that the whole is equivalent to its parts and as soon as we add
differentiation to the forms we see that their relation is quaternionic. Here the point
is that any part is equivalent to a whole composed of the other parts so that within
the quaternionic system this law of form is literally true. This is in fact a surprising
result.
(()) =
Note that the quaternion is like a reflective ball which we cannot see into but which
is perfectly holographic because each part reflects the whole. And beyond the
quaternion is the minimal system of the inwardly reflecting tetrahedron. So we have
one mirror reflecting outward and another mirror reflecting inward. The inner
1157
mirror is opaque on the inside and the outer mirror is opaque on the outside. Within
the "interval" between these two mirrors is a space in which infinite reflective
illusion is created. So we can see the law of form as saying that if you have a
layering of mirrors where the mirrors are facing each other then you have the
generation of illusion which is in reality nothing. This is another surprising result.
The laws of form correctly indicate under this interpretation exactly the
fundamental features of the mirroring between the autopoietic and the reflexive
system.
Based on this we could advance an interpretation of the laws of pattern. But to do

so we must reverse them from their normal order of presentation.
Figure 236:
() => (())
(()) => ((()))
((())) => (((())))
This is a picture of dissipation. Order in the form of more layering are coming into
existence from nowhere. If this interpretation holds water then we can see that we
have laws that cover each of the special systems. So it makes us wonder about the
last law of pattern which when reversed is as follows:
= ()()
Here we have difference appearing out of nothing. This is exactly what happens
with the special systems where it is merely by creating a conjunction that the
imaginaries appear as different from the real numbers. The act of conjunction holds
them into existence and the moment the conjunction ceases the difference
disappears. So we can see this last law as the sign of conjunction.
So from this perspective the laws of form and pattern are

Hologramic patterning where part equals whole
Facing mirrors create illusions that are empty
Dissipative order arrives from nowhere as layering
Conjunction allows differences to appear out of nowhere
If these interpretations hold up then we immediately see that there is real depth in
the relation between laws of form and their pattern duals.
1158
So this brings us to the point where we must question the relation between
repetition, layering, something and nothing. Let us look at them in terms of the
positive fourfold of Heidegger.
Figure 237:
multiplicity (repetition) = EARTH
layering = IMMORTAL
something = MORTAL
nothing = HEAVEN
Heaven is by very definition the no-where out of which things come. As the Tao
Te Ching says the myriad things arise from the mysterious gate of the feminine.
Things are created and destroyed and so can be thought of as mortal. Whereas what
is at the next higher meta-level above the mortal must be the immortal. So if we see
the layering in terms of meta-levels then we can understand that Spencer-Brown has
really just created an image of the positive fourfold that was first enunciated as the
constitution of the world by Socrates in the Gorgias. Of course that positive
fourfold is haunted by the negative fourfold as the system is always haunted by the
meta-system. The negative fourfold is
Figure 238:
NIGHT ---> LIGHT
CHAOS ---> ORDER
COVERING ---> DISPLAY (PRESENCING)
ABYSS ---> TRANSCENDENCE
When we turn the negative fourfold into positive attributes we see that it gives an
even better definition of the positive fourfold than that given by Socrates. We have
already mentioned that the negative and positive fourfold appear together as the
ogdad of the early Egyptian religion. Bunge also notes that many of the same
characteristics appear in early Assyrian religious texts as well. These eight appear
as the background out of which the ATUN (Atom) arises. So the system arises on
the background of the positive and negative fourfold. The positive fourfold
describes the world as the clearing in Being. The negative fourfold is the feminine
repressed elements that haunt the male dualisticlly dominant elements. In order to
have manifestation it is necessary to have both together. Manifestation is
transcendence and that is a form of repression. So for everything that shows up
there are things that are pushed out of the limelight.
However, if we look at the aspects that are used to define the laws of form and
pattern as a representation of the positive fourfold and recognize that they can be
1159
seen as defining not just completely manifest forms but also the incompletely
manifest things that must go through the states in which the special systems appear
then we have made a fundamental discovery that the laws of form and pattern are
not describing finished products but also their essential stages of constitution. Then
we realize that the differences between these four aspects are really the kinds of
Being. In other words the crossed differences between the two sides of the fourfold
represent kinds of being.
Figure 239:
|
Something | Layering (denied)
|
---------------------
|
Multiplicity | Nothing
(exposed) |
Notice that there are levels to the manifestation of the quadrature.
First there is no difference. Then the first difference between something and
nothing arises. Then the second difference between Multiplicity of something and
the layering of something appear. Then the third difference between the multiplicity
and nothing or between layering and nothing appears. Then the quadratic difference
itself appears. In this we see a Greimas square:
Figure 240:
A non-A
ONE ----------- DEPTH
| |
| |
| |
| |
anti-A------------anti-non-A
MANY nothing
Denied NON-BEING (Parmenides)
But the Greimas square is constituted in steps. The point is that the quadrature of
the fourfold is crossed and self-blocking and that is why it remains in existence. But
we get there by first positing a difference between something and nothing. Then we
note that something can either be repeated or layered. We deny layering and
concentrate on form and transcendence through the doctrine of the laws of form.
But then we notice that nothing is different when compared to the many or depth.
1160
And this final difference leads to the institution of cross-blocked quadrature which
is the final difference.
Figure 241:
Being
no-thing
/\
/ \
/ \
something/nothing -------------------------------- Process Being
| |
| |
| |
many/depth--|------------------------------------- Wild Being
| |
| |
| nothing/many//nothing/depth juxtaposition-- Hyper Being
| |
| |
\ /
\ /
\ /
quadrature ----------------------------------- Pure Presence
frozen crossed
distinctions
So we can see that the differences that underlie the fourfold as it comes into
existence are related to the different kinds of Being. Given this we go full circle
because we see that the four kinds of Being are intimately bound up in the fourfold
and that the there is a way of looking at the relations of these in terms of the laws of
form and pattern which sees the essential ingredients of the special systems. So the
kinds of Being and the Special systems are bound up together within the structure of
the quadrature which also happens to be a picture of the self-blocking crossed
Greimas square. The very structure that describes how things come into existence
also describe how they are maintained in existence within the webs of form and
pattern and how they leave existence through annihilation.
What comes of this is the realization that the inner structure of the mirroring
fourfold that Heidegger talks about is probably the Greimas square of contradiction
balanced between dialectical advance and annihilation. The mirroring of the
fourfold probably derives from the reflexivity that is embedded in the Greimas
square when it is unfolded dialectically. This realization allows us to understand
1161
better how our modeling of the special systems appears manifest in ontology from
Socrates to Heidegger in which a simple description of the Worldhood of the world
is finally seen to have incredible depth as it unfolds through our exploration of the
special systems. The four kinds of Being are implicit in any categorical/ontological
quadrature that we might base our analysis of the world upon. The mirroring of the
fourfold is necessarily social because mortals appear in social groups that
ecstatically project the world together through their heterodynamic nature. And the
gods are social projections of the human community at the transcendent level. We
see the community of the gods in Plato's Republic, the best city and the autopoietic
community of the mortals in Plato's Laws, the second best city. Other cities that
Plato relates to these are explored in The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path
Beyond The Void.
6. Magician Operators and the four aspects of Laws of Form/Pattern
Now that we have looked more deeply into the meaning of the four aspects of the
laws of form/pattern it is possible to rethink our position with regard to this
formalism. Let us take a different approach. First lets realize that each of the four
aspects of the laws of form/pattern (i.e. something, nothing, multiplicity, layering)
are essential and mutually interdependent. What the laws of form and pattern give
us is two different interrelations between these four aspects. But we can imagine
other kinds of interrelation between them. For instance, we can imagine relating
them through the operators of the magician system. Those operators we posit to be
Figure 242:
~ continuity
! discontinuity (annihilation)
> or < or | mutual action (left, right and commutative action)
# gestalt pattern formation (creation)
~ is associated with the full ordering of the real numbers
! is associated with the complexnions and the dissipative system
> or < is associated with the quaternions and the autopoietic
system it is not commutative. [a<b /= a>b unless forced by |]
# is associated with the octonions and the reflexive system it is
not associative. [a#(b#c) /= (a#b)#c unless forced by #']
Let us name the four aspects that underlie the laws of form and pattern in the
following way:
1162
Figure 243:
S = something
N = nothing
M = multiplicity
L = layering
Then we get the following equations:

Figure 244:
S~S=>......
S!S=>.....:
S|S=>....:.
S#S=>....::
-----
S~N=>...:..
S!N=>...:.:
S|N=>...::.
S#N=>...:::
-----
S~M=>..:...
S!M=>..:..:
S|M=>..:.:.
S#M=>..:.::
-----
S~L=>..::..
S!L=>..::.:
S|L=>..:::.
S#L=>..::::
=====
N~S=>.:....
N!S=>.:...:
N|S=>.:..:.
N#S=>.:..::
-----
N~N=>.:.:..
N!N=>.:.:.:
N|N=>.:.::.
N#N=>.:.:::
-----
N~M=>.::...
N!M=>.::..:
N|M=>.::.:.
N#M=>.::.::
-----
N~L=>.:::..
1163
N!L=>.:::.:
N|L=>.::::.
N#L=>.:::::
=====
M~S=>:.....
M!S=>:....:
M|S=>:...:.
M#S=>:...::
-----
M~N=>:..:..
M!N=>:..:.:
M|N=>:..::.
M#N=>:..:::
-----
M~M=>:.:...
M!M=>:.:..:
M|M=>:.:.:.
M#M=>:.:.::
-----
M~L=>:.::..
M!L=>:.::.:
M|L=>:.:::.
M#L=>:.::::
=====
L~S=>::....
L!S=>::...:
L|S=>::..:.
L#S=>::..::
-----
L~N=>::.:..
L!N=>::.:.:
L|N=>::.::.
L#N=>::.:::
-----
L~M=>:::...
L!M=>:::..:
L|M=>:::.:.
L#M=>:::.::
-----
L~L=>::::..
L!L=>::::.:
L|L=>:::::.
L#L=>::::::
Form/Pattern => Quality
1164
What this is saying is that each operation relating two aspects of the laws of form/
pattern produces an I Ching hexagram. We have already established that the I Ching
2^N level of differentiation of qualities is the basis of the patterning of the social
field. It corresponds to the sextahedron of five dimensional space. We have not here
attempted to look at the specific mapping of the hexagrams to the meanings of the
magician operations with the meanings of the laws of form/pattern aspects. What
we are establishing here only is that there is such a mapping. Since the hexagrams
are intertransformable via group operations this means that they provide an
intertransformable qualitative substrate to the quantitative laws of form/pattern
interactions via the magician system operations.
So what we have created here is a formalism based on the laws of form/pattern and
the magician operators that allow quantitative aspects of field to interchange with
qualitative aspects of a field. By establishing this relation between quality and
quantity via the N^2 <=> 2^N transformation we are now ready to establish the
truth values related to these transformations. Those truth values relate to matrix
logic.
For any formula a?b=>h where a, b are aspects of the laws of form/pattern, where ?
is a magician operator (~!|#) and h is a hexagram there is a showing and hiding truth
vector associated with one of the values 0, -1, 1 or i. The truth vector signals the
status of the formula within the overall showing and hiding of the qualitative/
quantitative system. The truth vector may either be a Bra <x,y| or Ket |x,y>. The bar
and greater than or less than signs merely frame and differentiate the bra or ket here
they do not have the meanings of the magician operators. In fact we will write the
qual-quantative formula with its truth value like this
Figure 245:
a?b=>h, Bx,y
a?b=>h, Kx,y
The inverse is . . .
Figure 246:
a?b<=h, Bx,y
a?b<=h, Kx,y
For a matrix operator to be applied to two formula one must be a Bra and the other
a Ket. The interaction will either yield a scalar or another matrix operator. The
production of scalars is an annihilation effect while the production of logic
operators is a creation of a pattern gestalt. But what this means is that combination
1165
of two formula which interact in the right way create matrix logic operators as an
emergent effect. Or they might reduce to a normal non-vectoral truth value. Here
we see things arising out of nothing and transforming through the qualitative
substrate forming multiplicities and layers before vanishing back into nothing. One
challenge here is to actually align the operators and aspects of laws of form/pattern
with the actual meaning of the hexagrams. But what is clear is that there is a relation
between the laws of pattern/form aspects considered operating under the magician
system and the qualitative hexagram intertransforming system that model the social
fabric.
The formulas give an intertransforming relation between Quantity and Quality and
the truth vectors govern the showing and hiding of these relations within the
Process level of manifestation. By allowing the truth vectors we have para-
consistency or the possibility of active contradiction. By allowing these vectors to
carry decimals we can then have fuzzy values that move us into the realm of Hyper
Being from process being. Truth vectors can take on imaginary values and thus
represent Mandelbrot like chaotic values when iterators so they move us into Wild
Being. So the truth vectors will allow us to interface with the different kinds of
Being in the showing and hiding relations besides allowing us to experience the
chiasmic effects of the Greimas square that appertain between the truth values.
Given a particular thing we can begin to scale the steps of meta-levels. Any one
thing is practico-inert. But we can view that thing either in terms of physus (change)
or logos (learning) and begin to scale the steps of the learning social organization.
When we split logos from physus we introduce the split also between the truth
values and the formulas that have those truth values. This split is orthogonal to that
between physus and logos. In fact Being has four aspects that flow from its
embedding in the Greek language: Truth, Reality, Identity, and Metaphor.
Each thing that has Being can be looked on from each of these perspectives. The
perspective of identity relates to the formal and structural system that is projected
on the thing. We see this in the formalisms that arise from the four aspects of
pattern/form. The truth aspect is captured in scalar and vector truth values. As truth
becomes more complex in the showing and hiding system it fragments into its
vectorial form. The vectorial form of truth is analogous to the splitting of formalism
into the micro-formalism of patterning that gives us the structural aspect of the
form. In our system the qualitative aspect is pushed out by an obsession with
quantity and it becomes metaphorical. So the qualitative aspects of things are
1166
accessed through metaphors rather than directly as they are in the Chinese system
permutational system which is first qualitative and de-emphasizes quantity. So we
can see that our formulas that relate quantity and quality via the magician operators
to the hexagrams embody identity, truth, and metaphor. What is missing is the
reality aspect. But we can see that the reality aspect enters in terms of the magician
operators themselves that allow creation, continuity, destruction and mutual action.
So reality is also represented in our formulas through the action of the magician
operators that represent the meta-systemic aspects that relate the laws of form/
pattern. So all the views implicit in Being are present giving us a complete
modeling of the mirroring fourfold at the levels of:
structure/pattern:
The structural level is made visible by allowing (), ()', ()" diacritical marks to
differentiate different repetitions of the same form.
The laws of pattern represent this level formally.

form/shape:
The level of form is made visible by the mark of laws of form. Kinds are not
represented but could be introduced by coloring the forms.
The laws of form represent this level formally.

system/gestalt:
The showing and hiding of the forms and patterns are represented by the vectorial
truth values.
The matrix logic represents this level.

meta-system as origin/arena:
The complementarities of the hyper matrix logic can represent this level.
domain/language:
Is represented by the combination of formulas and vector truth values to create a

predicate matrix logic.
1167
world/Being:
Is represented by the mirroring of the fourfold seen in the aspects of the laws of
form/pattern.
So we can see how the different ontological levels of emergence can be represented
within this system based on the combination of the aspects of the laws of form/
pattern with matrix logic and the magician system.
7. Magical Operators
Let us continue our investigation by considering the action of magician operators

on themselves:
Figure 247:
~~ continuous continuity or meta-continuity = ILLUSION
~! continuous discontinuity = ATOMIZATION
~| continuous action = FLOW
~# continuous pattern = ORDERING
!~ discontinuous continuity = PUNCTUATION
!! discontinuous discontinuity or meta-discont. = BREAK
!| discontinuous action = STEPS
!# discontinuous pattern = SEGMENTATION
|~ active continuity = STATE
|! active discontinuity = SEPARATION
|| active action = CONTROL
|# active patterning = BEHAVIOR
#~ patterned continuity = ALGORITHM
#! patterned discontinuity = FRAGMENTATION
#| patterned action = HABIT
## patterned patterning = FORM
These reduce to ten operations:

Figure 248:
~~ ILLUSION
!! BREAK IN ILLUSION
|| CONTROL OF ACTION
## FORM
In these we see illusion as the creation of illusory continuity or pure presence

which holds forms as patterns of patterns in existence. Through control or
repression these forms dualistically dominate their contents until the illusion is
broken.
1168
There are six chiasmic operators:

Figure 249:
~!/!~ ATOMIZATION/PUNCTUATION = QUANTIZATION
~|/|~ FLOW/STATE = CONTINUITY
~#/#~ ORDER/ALGORITHM = NOMOS
!|/|! STEPS/SEPARATION = ANALYSIS
!#/#! SEGMENTATION/FRAGMENTATION = JUXTAPOSITION
|#/#| BEHAVIOR/HABIT = PROCESS
Where taking two aspects of laws of form/pattern and operating on them with a
single operator was posited to yield a hexagram (a qualitative state); here we see
that by combining operators we get more concrete operations that have meaning. So
we can think of taking two laws of form aspects and combining them with double
operators to produce a particular kind of result which is not qualitative but instead
quantitative.
Figure 250:
a??b=>Result Bx,y
a??b=>Result Kx,y
So we posit that a single operator yields a quality whereas a double operator yields
a result that that can be understood in terms of the combination of the aspects of the
laws of form/pattern. We will call this combination an eventity.
Figure 251:
S??S=eventity (positive wavicle)
S??N=eventity (disappearing thing)
S??M=eventity (scattering thing)
S??L=eventity (differentiating thing)
N??S=eventity (emergent thing)
N??N=eventity (negative wavicle)
N??M=eventity (myriad things)
N??L=eventity (categorical distinctions)
M??S=eventity (gathering things, coral like unity)
M??N=eventity (disappearing myriad things)
M??M=eventity (cloud, heterarchy, swarm)
M??L=eventity (implicate ordering)
L??S=eventity (pearl like unity)
L??N=eventity (collapsing hierarchy)
L??M=eventity (shredding rhizome)
L??L=eventity (hierarchy)
An eventity is a minimal system of laws of form aspects and operations. We can

see this as the laws of form aspects being rotated into and back out of the underlying
1169
wave substrata. The eventity is a minimal system of elements half aspects of laws of
form/pattern and half operators. The operators are chiasmic and the point of
reversibility in that chiasm is the wave like substrata underlying the particle like
coherence of the entity. When these wavelike and particle like aspects intersect
these are called the eventity (wavicle, lave).
8. Connections to Traditional Chinese Sciences
This production of eventities reminds us in Chinese Traditional science of the

differences between:
Figure 252:
Major Yang = SUN = SOMETHING
Minor Yang = STARS = MULTIPLICITY
Major Yin = MOON = NOTHING (background)
Minor Yin = PLANETS = LAYERING (concentric rings around sun)
These are the four major celestial lights. Only comets add to these by the naked
eye. Sun and Stars radiate while Moon and Planets reflect. So we might suspect that
this is another image of the positive fourfold. Which brings up the question as to
what radiates within the reflexive system. For the reflexive system to work there
must be a production of light. That light source must exist between the mirrored
outer surface of the quaternion and the mirrored inner surface of the tetrahedron that
gives us quaternionic reflections. Light is the medium through which the mirrors
interact, and as we have seen before the light is autopoietic in its nature.
The four celestial lights define the relation between Homeopathy and Acupuncture.
Homeopathy treats emotions and mental distortions which are based in the Heart
(sun) and Mind (moon). Acupuncture treats the channeling of Chi in the body. Chi
jumps between acupuncture points along the heuristic paths called meridians. The
acupuncture points are like the stars. The flow of Chi is governed by the Five Hsing
(transformations) that are represented by the five visible planets. The major and
minor Yin and Yang cycle is continually rolling over from opposites to their
opposites. When it stagnates then closed Yin and Yang splendor is produced. They
are produced by the production of a third thing. In this case instead of having two
places with two states we jump to three states which as in the Tai Hsung Ching.
This produces five extra states with double broken lines. Dual double broken lines
is yang splendor. The other four states with either yin, yang, or double-broken lines
together represent closed yin. Closed yin is fragmented and yang splendor is
unified. This is relevant because the Tai Hsung Ching has 81 states just like matrix
1170
logic with the negative logic has 81 logical operators. These are two views of the
same threshold of complexity where showing and hiding occurs. In the Chinese
system these 81 nodes are given qualitative meaning. The move from two states in
two places to three states in two places takes us from four to nine bigrams. These
bigrams taken in pairs produces the 81 states of showing and hiding referred to in
the Tai Hsung Ching. Since when a third thing is produced the door is opened to
chaos in a progressive bisection this transition that produces the nine states out of
the four (yang splendor & closed yin) and creates the possibility of a chaotic
system. This transition is the second earliest that the transition can occur in a
progressive bisection (i.e. after the second bisection). The earliest is recorded in the
Tao Te Ching as From the One comes the Two; from the two comes the three; from
the three comes the myriad things. Once the third thing appears then the chaos of
the myriad things can be produced.
9. The Logico-mathematical Structure of Interpenetrating Eventities
If we think through the direction that we are going carefully it becomes clear that
what we are actually building here is a logico-mathematical formalism which treats
the eventitiy as a minimal system composed of aspects from the laws of form/
pattern and magician operators. The complete eventity is a combination of two
entities (form/pattern aspects) and two events (magician operators) combined into a
minimal system. When we take the eventity as a whole we get a result whereas if
we take a slice of the eventity (two events and one entity or two entities and one
event) then we get a hexagram instead (i.e. a quality or wave like state of the
minimal system). Looking at this we can see further that there are the following
formula by which this eventity can be represented:
Figure 253:
ab == tetragrams t [16 posibilities]
?? == t
?a == t
a? == t
Figure 254:
a?b = hexagram h [64 possibilities]
b?a = h'
??'a = h
?'?a = h'
Figure 255:
a??'b = result r [4^4=265=2^8 possibilities]
b??'a = r
a?'?b = r
b?'?a = r
1171
We can add quantification [E and A] to these formula and truth vectors from the
matrix logic to produce a complete logico-mathematical system based on the
adumbration of the different aspects of the eventity in their relation with each other.
We see in the eventity a combination of two entities (law of form/pattern aspects)
and two events (magician operations) that combine into a minimal system in stages.
Each stage appears due to the addition of possible relations between the noetic
(action) and noematic (perceptual) elements of the minimal system.
We might say that the eventity is a combination of a relation between events with a
relation between entities. In this sense it appears as an embedding in spacetime that
shows us either what Manthey calls coexclusion or coincidence. By relating two
events and two entities together we create a spinnor structure that has a particular
static position in spacetime. Each entity and each event have chiasmic relations with
each other from the point of view of an inertial frame. Yet the eventity structure
decomposes into hexagrams that represent the wave like structure underlying the
structure of the eventity.
Now that we have defined the eventity structure as a minimal system of two events
and two entities using the aspects of form/pattern and the magician operators lets
look again at the implications of this definition. We can see that the combinations of
aspects with each other, aspects with magician operators, or magician operators
among themselves give us 64 different combinations. This is the same as we get if
we take any three way slice with two aspects and one operator or two operators and
one aspect. It is only the complete eventity structure that gives us 256 results which
might be embedded into the 64 by overdetermining each hexagram with four
results. Now when we look at this structure what is striking is the fact that there are
four aspects and four operations that when looked at carefully can be seen to align
with the eight kinds of numbers expressed in the octonion. When we make this
connection we get the following patterning:
Figure 256:
r i j k E I J K
S N L M ~ ! | #
rS r r r r r r r r
iN r-1 k-j J-K-E I
jL r-k-1 i I E-k-J
kM r j-i-1 E-I J-K
E~ r-J-I-E-1 i j k
I! r K-E I-i-1-k j
J| r E K-J-j k-1-i
1172
K# r-I J K-k-j i-1
When we look at the relation between something and nothing we see that it has
exactly the kind of relation between r and i when we think of them in relation to the
dissipative system (i.e. i represents nowhere beyond the singularity). When we
move from this level up to the quaternion level what is added is Layering and
Multiplicity which are two ways to relate something to something else. But when
we start to consider that multiplicity and layering also might relate nothing to
nothing or nothing to something then we can see very strange structures arising that
have an affinity to interpenetration. What is interpenetration but the relation of
things to each other through the no-where of the layering and multiplicity of
nothing. Intermediate between the interpenetrated state of affairs and the non-
interpenetrated state of affairs is the various connections of something to nothing
through layering and multiplicity. Note that layering and multiplicity can be seen
under the rubric of typed meta-levels (ramified higher logical types) proposed by
Russell to solve paradoxes. So the layering and multiplicity may be a layering of
metalevels and a multiplicity of types by which things are related to nothing. When
we posit that these relations follow the holographic forms of the quaternions then
we suddenly see the relations of something, nothing, layering, and multiplicity in a
new light all together which makes sense of the jump from something to nothing
and the even bigger jump form nothing to layering and multiplicity.
However, it is only when we compare these aspects from the laws of form/pattern
to the magician operators that we get the full impact of looking at this within the
octonion framework. Here we see that ~ continuity is a lot like something. In fact,
continuity is having something present over time or space or both. And we
immediately see that discontinuity is a break in the space, time or spacetime
continuity that we posit with the real numbers. This break can be seen as the
intrusion of no-where, no-time or no-thing into the continuum. We see this logically
as cancellation and physically as annihilation. In both cases it causes a
disappearance of what as persistently present continuously. So note the similarity
between something/nothing and continuity/discontinuity. Now when we move to
gestalt pattern formation and mutual action there is a similar jump to that we found
with the move to multiplicity and layering. Gestalt pattern formation and mutual
action are at least an order more complex than the mere distinction between
continuity and discontinuity like the ramified higher logical types are at least an
order of magnitude more complex than the something/nothing distinction. See the
isomorphism between the aspects and the magician operators. When we place this
1173
isomorphism in the context of the octonion multiplication table then we see that the
E is like continuity and that the I, J and K can be seen as isomorphic to the other
magician operations. So that the octonion square can be seen as interrelations
between the imaginaries at the octonion level and at the same time the interrelation
between the laws of form aspects and the magician operations.
But when we look deeper into the relation between E and IJK in relation to r and ijk
we must take into account the difference in associativeness between these two
structures. When we take that into account that causes us to refine our mapping in
the following way.
Figure 257:
r i j k E I J K
~ ! | S # N L M
r~ r r r r r r r r
i! r-1 k-j J-K-E I
j| r-k-1 i I E-k-J
kS r j-i-1 E-I J-K
E# r-J-I-E-1 i j k
IN r K-E I-i-1-k j
JL r E K-J-j k-1-i
KM r-I J K-k-j i-1
In this patterning we give continuity to the reals which are the best representative
of continuity we have through full ordering and the existence of transcendental
limits. The interaction of the reals with the imaginaries is through conjunction
which allows annihilation to come into existence. The discontinuity between the
reals and the imaginaries seen in conjunction allows annihilation to be manifest. So
at this point the very property we explicitly gave to the imaginary numbers which
allowed the dissipative system to exist has come into being within the formation by
a doubling procedure. The two imaginaries annihilate into the singularity -1. When
the doubling procedure is followed again we get j and k in the form of mutual action
and something appearing. When we loose the commutative property mutual action
as > (left) or < (right) acting appears and by the asymmetry of action things
manifest as closed autopoietic unities. So noesis and noema arise simultaneously.
The J is the generator and so it is associated with the action rather than the agent or
passive receptor. Now when the doubling occurs again the E is the generator and
the magician operator that is left is pattern formation. Pattern formation occurs not
just by continuity but by the introduction of juxtaposition. This can occur because
there is nothing added to the system at this level and there is an interaction between
1174
something and nothing in the mutual reflexivity of Layering and Multiplicity. So

here we get not just the closed unity but the reflexive structure of interpenetration as
things holographically mirror each other at a distance and with distortion via the
nothing that is layered and multiplied. And there is also an interface between
something and nothing -- an interface between heaven and earth that appears as
well. The action of pattern formation E=# causes partial associativeness between
the elements that are normally disjunct of nothing, layering and multiplicity. Pattern
formation causes these to interact to form quaternion reflections of the something in
the adumbrations of nothing, layering and multiplicity. We can see these reflections
in the following combinations of imaginary elements.
Figure 258:
ijk annihilation:mutual-action:something = annihilation mosaic
iJK annihilation:layering:multiplicity = interpenetration
jIK mutual-action:nothing:multiplicity = karmic action
kIJ something:nothing:layering = dharmadatu
iIE annihilation:nothing:pattern-formation = tatagata gharba
jJE mutual-action:layering:pattern-formation = samsara
kKE something:multiplicity:pattern-formation = myriad things
EIJK pattern-formation:nothing:layering:multiplicity = emptiness
In other words the reflections of the ijk annihilation mosaic appear as different
patterns that can be interpreted as faces of interpenetration. So the group patterning
of the imaginaries gives a very concrete model of interpenetration by which heaven
and earth achieve their empty balance -- that empty balance, or fulcrum in the void
is precisely represented in the pattern of the octonion multiplication table. That
table when applied to the aspects of form/pattern and the magician operators give us
a logico-mathematical model of the special systems in which the new operations at
each level appear by the hyper-complex algebraic doubling procedure. Our logico-
mathematical formalism is a model of interpenetration and emptiness while at the
same time allowing us to understand the structure of the fourfold. The 64
representations of the octonion that comes from permutating the minus signs map to
the 64 hexagrams that are the wave like structure underlying the eventity. The 480
multiplications show us the reflectivity within the octonion structure.
10. Non-dual and Dual Fourfolds
This leads to a further insight. If we posit that the major and minor yin and yang
formation is a non-dual representation of the fourfold and that there is a connection
between the aspects of form/pattern or the magician operators and this nondual
representation, then it is possible to see how the dualistic forms of the positive and
1175
negative fourfold arise step by step.

Figure 259:
|
Major Yin | Minor Yin
Moon | Planets
Something | Layering
continuity | pattern formation
---------------------
|
Multiplicity | Nothing
Stars | Sun
Minor Yang | Major Yang
mutual action | discontinuity
|
What occurs is that into the non-dual fourfold is introduced a third quality. This
third quality creates five more bigrams. The bigram that is made up only of the third
quality in both its places would then by Yang Splendor while the other four bigrams
that have the third quality in only one of its places and either yin or yang in the other
place would represent Closed Yin. Now after the arising of the third quality an
usurpation takes place in which the third quality proclaims itself to be the Yang and
exchanges signs with the yang. So now yang is represented by a doubly broken line
and the third quality is shown as an unbroken line. After the usurpation a conflict is
posited between the extreme nihilistic opposites and this is what gives rise to the
male (positive) and female (negative) versions of the fourfold. These versions exist
in an eternal struggle (war of the sexes) like Ahura Mazda and Ahriman of the
dualistic Zoroastrian religion from which we inherit many of our cultural motifs via
the Greeks.
So we have a series of steps:
Figure 260:
Entry of the third thing
Usurpation of the throne of the Yang (unseen cause)
Extremism and the production of nihilistic opposites
Anti-production of conflict between eternal enemies
This series is the real meaning of the steps of emergence. The emergence is the
emergence of the third thing. We know that the entry of the third thing is what
produces chaos in chaos theory. We know that for anything to be seen erratic
change must be produced as a background phenomena upon which things are
highlighted. The eternal conflict between extreme opposites serves the purpose of
1176
creating the desired entropy in the background to make neg-entropy ultra-visible.

Out of the melee are constantly arising nihilistic opposites that only appear different
but are in effect the same. The conflict between these opposites hide the actual
unseen celestial causation. And the culprit, the third quality, goes unseen as it
destroys the non-dualistic balance and replaces it with chaos and dualism.
Now we also note that the five new qualitative states mimic the celestial Hsing
associated with the planets. And so we realize that the fire of Yang Splendor stands
in contrast with the earth, water, wood and fire Hsing that represent closed yin. This
makes sense finally of the doubling of the Hsing to create the organs in
acupuncture. There is a true and a false set of Hsing which the Chinese called yang
and yin Hsing and which they called the ten principle organs. We can check this
insight by referring to the standard image of the Hsing which is a pot on the cooking
fire.
Figure 261:
Chi steam
water in boiling in pot Three Yin
metal pot Three Yang
fire Three Three > Yang Splendor
wood on earth Yang Three
earth Yin Three
Notice that the fire is in the middle between the other four Hsing. Fire is in the
position of cause. You apply the fire and you get the Chi Steam. So here too fire is
in the center as it is in the Tai Hsung Ching where the third has Usurped the role of
the Yang and is interpreted as the undifferentiated center. So we posit that what
Chinese medicine is giving us is a picture of imbalance that occurs when the third
quality arises and usurps the role of the celestial causation -- that is causation out of
nowhere. When this occurs false Hsing are created that eclipse the true Hsing and
you get a shifting of responsibility from the true centers of powers to the peripheral
centers of power. The Chinese saw the body and everything else as autopoietic
special systems that are ultra efficient. When an imbalance occurred then the
nihilistic extremes are created that rage within the body producing symptoms
through the imbalance that they create. Treatment balances the body back toward
the autopoietic mean away from the imbalances of surplus (whole greater than the
sum of the parts) and insufficiency (whole less that the sum of the parts). The whole
of Chinese medicine attempts to right the natural balance that our bodies have when
they become autopoietic. This is why Hun Tun is the symbol of perfection to the
Chinese -- he represents the closed autopoietic state.
1177
11. Phenomenology of emptiness
When we look at ourselves and out experience from a phenomenological

perspective we see that it is possible for us to consider what we experience as
wholes greater than the sum of the parts, wholes less that the sum of the parts, and
wholes exactly equal to the sum of the parts. Normally we think of the things as
systems and consciousness as the meta-system within which we experience the
interaction of these things. Or conversely we consider the surplus to be in
consciousness as our intentionality and the lack to be in things that are noematic.
But the third possibility hides itself between these two and is normally never seen.
That is to consider that consciousness operates on the rules of the special systems
and that it merely projects systems and meta-systems to contrast to this third
possibility in which there is not third thing as either surplus or lack. You see as soon
as we enter into the special systems we have entered the realm of non-duality upon
which the Chinese built their sciences. And that was because they looked on
everything as purely conjuncted into special systems and they concentrated on the
autopoietic special system because that was the absolute mean between system and
meta-system and further between dissipative special system and reflexive special
system. When we consider consciousness from the phenomenological perspective
then we are again striking that balance by clinging to only what appears. We are
ignoring any surpluses or lacks beyond appearances. As Wm James says we are
looking at the "object" as pure apperception 'nothing more nor less.' When we cling
to appearances that are isolated by reduction then we discover that consciousness
has all the aspects of ultra-efficiency that we have associated with the special
systems. So we can posit that there is a plane of pure appearance on which the
special systems organize the internal workings of consciousness. When we deviate
from this plane we first get dissipation and reflection and then later get systems
gestalts and meta-system contexts. At the dissipative level we are thrust into our
own bodies and become what Merleau-Ponty calls Flesh. At the reflexive level we
are swimming in the sea of intersubjectivity within which thought arises as first
intersubjective mythic thought and then later as individual metaphysical thought.
The oddity of our consciousness under phenomenological scrutiny is like the

oddity of the medium of communication, light, which takes its structure and form
from the ultra efficient properties of the special systems. We think of this ultra
efficiency as the intrusion of four dimensional rotations into three dimensional
space -- but we forget that we are four dimensional beings already due to our
embedding in spacetime as eventities that when we consider as minimal systems
1178
become spinnors which are stable within spacetime. This is our dance. And that
dance is the ultra efficient movements that appears as hyperdimensional rotations in
place within spacetime.
When we look at consciousness as Aron Gurwitch does in The Field Of

Consciousness it is clear that when we reduce it to appearances only, nothing more
nothing less, that it is a field of synergetic nodes. Each thing appears in
consciousness with an inner horizon of noematic implicit meanings that may be
unfolded and a series of noetic anticipated actions implied within it. This synergetic
infolded nature of all things that appear within consciousness is very striking and
reminds us of the synergism of fourths. Consciousness considered as a field is full
of fourths and the Firsts, Seconds, and Thirds unfold from these as if from a
cornucopia of implicit contents and actions that are infolded in every thing and
which can be almost effortlessly unfolded unless there is some constraint that
prevents it, like too little light. When we look at the relation between all these
synergetic nodes then we see that they all effortlessly revolve around each other
making up the constitution of the world as a synergy of the horizons of all the things
that appear within the world and all the perspectives on those things. It is as if not
only are the things holographic but the viewpoints upon the world make up a meta-
hologram that is encompassing a myriad of sub-holograms with interpenetrating
nodes. Each part of the hologram is a point of synergy which we only later dissect
into Thirds (by recognizing the invariances of the noematic nucleus), Seconds by
recognizing the relations between natural complexes of different kinds, and Firsts
(by recognizing the integration of contents which give each thing it's uniqueness).
The effortless and ultra efficient unfolding of the infolded nodes in the field of
consciousness reminds us of the special systems more than it reminds us of systems
or meta-systems. So we posit that at the level of pure appearance under
phenomenological reduction we are at the point of ultrafine balance between all
extremes and at that point the functioning of consciousness is autopoietic as
modeled by the quaternion four dimensional rotations. These rotations of
autopoietic synergetic nodes are effortless and can be described as a perpetual
motion machine like that which appears in superconducting systems. When we fall
away from this point of balance then we find that we either see consciousness as
dissipative or reflective. If we see it as dissipative then we notice the ordering of
consciousness from unknown and hidden sources beyond the surface of
appearances. If we see it as reflective then we look at consciousness looking at itself
and we see it as a distorted mirror mirroring itself. This distorted mirror is the same
if we look at the individual embedded in the social consciousness or at the cognitive
1179
mechanisms that make up the individual that reflect each other in a distorted
indefinite reflection that is open to our introspection as it looks in on itself. If we
fall further away from appearances only then we see consciousness in terms of
systems or meta-systems. As such there are two views. If we see consciousness as
full of gestalt systems as Gurwitch does then consciousness itself becomes a meta-
system in which these systems arise and interact. If we see consciousness itself as a
system as Jahn and Dunne do with their quantum model of consciousness, then it is
always haunted by meta-systematic shadows with penumbras of undecidability and
umbras of indistinguishability. Such a consciousness is always haunted by the
unconscious or the possibility of self-consciousness which are never realized except
in momentary discontinuous aspects of experience. And ultimately it is haunted by
the spirit and anti-spirit that arise from the dialectical completion of the unfolded
Greimas square of consciousness.
So phenomenology gives us access to the special systems characteristics of

consciousness itself that are normally covered over by everyday engagement in the
lifeworld. When we enter the realm of pure appearances we notice the synergies of
consciousness that appear both on the noetic and noematic horns of the Logos/
Physus split which phenomenology has transported into consciousness. We see this
spit in the separation of the aspects of form/pattern from the magician operators.
What we really need is a non-dualistic phenomenology which allows us to go back
before the noesis/noema dualism to the celestial fourfold as a description of non-
split consciousness. This is before the split of the individuals from the social field.
The field of consciousness at that point is no different from the social field and the
nodes of synergy there are the embodied consciousnesses embedded in the social
field with primordial social consciousness. It is only later when the individual
becomes reified that we talk of our own individual consciousness and the
appearances of objects within the field of our phenomenologically reduced
consciousness. For the ultimate object in the field of consciousness is the Other
with whom we have a significant relationship. We have already seen how the
unfolding of the Greimas square helps us understand how we can think of a
chiasmic relation to the other without infinite regress. So when the field of social
consciousness and individual consciousness are one single field then we have
achieved a non-dualistic view at the point where there is no difference between
noesis and noema. The noesis of the other is my noema and vice versa. When I
assume a chiasmic relation to the other then we become one flesh as Merleau-Ponty
has said.
1180
Similar viewpoints can be given in relation to the other Humanistic methods

(Dialectics, Structuralism, and Hermeneutics). We have already seen how the inner
structure of dialectics leads us to understand chiasmic non-dual relations. Similarly
with meanings. Meanings are timeless as Gurwitch says. The unfolding of
meanings is prior to the split between noesis and noema. And so it is with the
constraints within consciousness. We can explore those discontinuous constraints
just as easily as we can explore the timeless meanings that lie behind the noesis
noema dichotomy. Dialectics describes the unfolding of the infolded horizons of
noesis and noema. Beyond that chaiasm of noesis/noema there is the emptiness out
of which meaning appears and which can be explored as an essential horizon of
consciousness on emptiness itself. There are the constraints of consciousness that
give rise to the structures that appear in the world that we can explore and their is
the field that is constrained of appearances that operates ultra-efficiently continuing
nodes of synergy that have infolded noetic and noematic horizons. Finally we
appeal to heuristic research that releases from the constraints of distancing that all
the other humanistic methods operate under. We know our consciousness ultimately
by dwelling within it with others and experiencing the field of consciousness in all
its ramifications and adumbrations. We fall into non-dual states and fall back out of
them into dualistic states continuously on the ebb and flow of the dynamic
processes of consciousness. We can see consciousness as tertiary process, but as we
explore it more deeply we realize that we ourselves are embedded in the secondary
processes or living and the primary process of manifestation. So we know very well
the ultra efficiency of the workings of consciousness and take it for granted as we
experience the lifeworld. Who can deny the synergy of things within the field of
consciousness and the ease of unfolding those synergies. Who can deny the ultra-
efficiency of meanings that flow back and forth between us so effortlessly. Who can
deny that effortless dialectical unfolding of consciousness by which new synergies
are continually being produced some of which are emergent and which change us
essentially. Who can deny that the constraints of consciousness discovered by
structuralism have the ultra-opaqueness of the autopoietic system. Who can deny
that when we view our own consciousness without imposing artificial distance that
we are living in a non-dual world in which we continually interact with others and
ourselves based on the assumption of the ultra-efficiency of the special systems.
1181
12. Cognition
Figure 262:
homeostasis ATTRACTOR NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
heterodynamics REPULSOR POSITIVE FEEDBACK
In the dissipative system there are ordering functions.
In the autopoietic system there are homeostatic loops (attractors, feedback loops)
that operate as a network to maintain the organization of the system itself. Note it is
the organization that is being maintained not a single variable. That is a whole set of
variables and their relations that need to be maintained. So we have a whole
network of homeostatic loops to do that and these working together produces self-
regulating hyper-cycles (a control program). It is the control program (hypercycles)
that make the system SELF-producing not the network of the homeostatic loops.
In a multi-dimensional dynamic system you need a lot of homeostatic loops to hold

something in the organization static. Basically the loops must work against each
other to do that. Loops that work against each other provide stucture to the
organization. Loops that do not work against each other provide flexiblity to adapt
to change. Basically this is like a systems dynamic model with a lot of feed back
loops. After a certain complexity you have no idea what it will do given an imput.
This is the meaning of the closure of the autopoietic system. It is closed because all
the interacting attractors are just too complex to understand. A given input
depending on where everything else is in its cycles could give very different
outputs. Within the system we cannot differentate from phenomena produced by the
homeostatic loops themselves interacting and internal phenomena. So from a
cognitive point of view we cannot separate the observer from the system.
Now when we move on to heterodynamics we see repulsors added to the system.

Repulsors are positive feed back loops which is what gives the system its ecstatic
quality. Here instead of maintaining a static structure around which to organize
there is a more dynamic kind of organization which is continually changing and
adapting to the current relation between positive feedback loops. The negative feed
back structure has to continually change to compensate the positive feedback within
the system -- that makes it ecstatic. To do this it begins feeding forward instead of
just backward. This feedforward or planning allows it to compenstate in advance for
projected changes. When we reverse this process based on experience then we have
learning. So a heterodynamic system has repulsors or positive feedback, but not so
1182
much to overwhelm the system, and it does planning (feedforward) and the
comparison of feedforward to what really happens gives us learning. Learning can
occur at all the different meta-levels of learning with respect to the different meta-
levels of change.
Now the heterodynamic ecstatic system pours distortion into the overall closed
autopoietic system. This is the opposite of the dissipative system that pours order
from nowhere. Now we are pouring in distortions from everywhere as the relations
between the repulsors within the system change. This distortion allows us to see the
true constraints under which the girating heterodynamic system is operating. These
true constraints are invisible in the heterodynamic system except for the difference
between the distortion and what cannot be distorted. Those things that cannot be
distorted we call abstract ideas when they are recognized within the heterodynamic
system. When they emerge cognition separates from the living underpinnings of the
system. Now what happens?
When we recognize the abstract ideas (invariant constraints that are embedded in
the emptiness) we realign the organization of the autopoietic system to embody
these invisible structures with visible represenatations. Lets call these simple or
concrete ideas. Now we have a heterodynamic system which has aligned its
autopoietic substrate to represent the invariants which it sees through the
distortions. Lets call this process a paradigm shift. Once the paradigm has shifted
and we have a new organization the repulsors might change in relation to each other
and reveal different or changed invariangs or greater precision approximations to
the invariants. So later we get another paradigm shift. This could occur at different
ontological levels as episteme shifts or changes in worldview. The point is that
when the shift occurs a change in the essence of the heterodynamic system occurs.
What is this? Because we cannot really differentiate the distortions from the
undifferentaitedness of the inner verses outer stimuli. Only because of the
distortions can we see the invarints and this allows us to differentate inner from
outter -- because we are ecstaticly producing the inner and compare the outer to
what we produce to derive reality.
The dissipative system produces order blindly within the boundary. The autopoietic
system feeds off this order production to set up catalytic hyper-cycles within the
boundary and thus separtates its structures from its organization. Notice the
structure is both the content which the organizaton uses to order itself and the
invariants that are established via multiple homeostatic loops controlling the same
1183
variable. Organization then by this definition (perhaps not Maturna and Varela's) is
the flexible response due to multiple interacting feedback loops which makes it
impossible to tell internal from external stimuli within the autopoietic system. Then
then the heterodynamic system adds to this the wild cards of positive feedback
loops, just enough to be unpredictable in their interaction but not so much as to
overwhelm the system. This creates distortion. Via this distortion we can now tell
the inner from outer stimuli and we can see invisible invariants within the system.
The gyrations of the system as it aligns with these invisible invarints are paradigm
changes. When the paradigm change occurs then theories that represent the
invariants are produced in which the simple or concrete ideas represent the invisible
"forms" of the invariants.
It is a beautiful system because it is the distortions that allow us to differentiate

inside stimuli from outside stimuli and to see the invariants (timeless meanings in
Gurwitch and Abstract thoughts in Maturana). I think this is a complete cognitive
model -- we should see this cognitive model operating in the social and the
psychological realms as mirrorings of each other. In the social realm we are
distinguishing us from them and positing the generalized Other as an invariant. The
ultimate invarinant in these terms is God. So we can interpret Eric Gans ideas in this
light. On the psychological side we each are trying to discern reality as we live in
the articulated dream of consciousness. And we are each trying to reprsent the
invariants in the world we see with ideas.
The dissipative system pours in order form nowhere.
The autopoietic system is a network of feedback loops some of which together

form a hyper-cycle.
The reflexive system can learn because it is projecting plans -- feed forward loops
that is compared to what happens. I pours distortions into the closed autopoietic
system and on the basis of that makes it possible to discern inner from outer stimuli
and to see invariant forms which are articulations of the emptiness that engulfs the
system.
The homeostatic loops work against each other to create structure and together to
create organization that is differentiated in the autopoietic system. In the dissipative
system these two are not differentiated. Everything is just a pattern imposed from
nowhere in the dissipative system.
1184
<begin quote of Onar Aam personal correspondence>
I am not sure that heterodynamics is characterized by repulsion. There are several

reasons for this:
1) the algebra hierarchy involves specialization. That is, autopoiesis is a special

kind of dissipative system, reflexive autopoiesis is a special kind of autopoietic
system.
2) in Tony's physics model the octonion distortion was associated with gravity.
And as we know, the social is a gravitation field, never repulsive always attracting.
I believe that heterodynamics is not repulsive. It is just as attractive as autopoiesis.

The dynamics I believe arise as a conflict between the closure of the mind and the
closure of the social. (Freud's Id vs. Super-ego) Recall that the quaternion has
perfect closure (associative), the octonion however only manages to produce partial
closure. Partial closure is closure with holes/flaws in it. It is from these holes that
distortion flows. Distortion is a product of failed closure and hence the dynamics of
the octonion.
As such I think we can say that the dynamics of the mind comes from two
conflicting attractors. There is no repulsion, only tension and conflict. So like the
dissipative pours in order from nowhere the reflexive pours in distortion from the
flawed closure.
I have suspected for a long time that the mind may not be autopoietic, but reflexive.
You've pointed out that the only aspect of our mind which stays invariant is our
knowledge. We've also seen how habits/mimickers are homeostatic. Therefore I am
suspecting that knowledge is an autopoietic network within the mind. I am dead
certain that the mind as a whole is not a homeostat, yet there are still invariants
within the mind. Have you noticed how values and knowledge refuse to adapt, as if
they were autopoietic? Ideas are the most rigid. When in the field of reflexion
(ideation=homeostasis^2=stasis) ideas refuse to be plastic. Ideas enforce
deductions, something which mathematics is an extreme example of. You can't
deduce any laws you like from a particular kind of axioms. As such, mathematics is
the most extreme autopoietic system possible.
<end of quote>
1185
I think perhaps you read my explanation a little to literally. I tried to say several
times that there is not too much repulsion to distrupt the autopoietic system. So
think of the autopoietic system as having structure which is held rigid by multiple
feedback loops working against each other. But it has organization which is its
flexiblity, the flexibility is such that the same input may result in different outputs at
different times due to the internal state of the system in its multiple homeostatic
balancing routines that form a network and hypercycle of multiple attractors
(negative feedback loops).
Now think of this flexiblity of the organization as having not just many interacting
feedback loops but also some positive feedback loops. These can be of two types
leading to either blackholes or unending escallations. Now if the organization is
flexible enough to contain these escallations or drains then the repulsions that force
the prositive feedback could be seen as interacting to produce distortions within the
field of feedback loops. When the positive feedback loops are too strong for the
flexibility of the autopoietic system to contain then they break out and become the
black holes and miracles of the meta-systemic environment. But due to the
flexiblity of the organization of the autopoietic system they can contain some
marginal positive feedback that is compensated for without bursting the boundary
of the autopoietic system.
Think about it this way. Negative feedback loops reduce distortion by their very
nature. In order to get distortion in the system then you need some partially
uncontrollable element that is producing positive feedback erratically. This is
exactly the condition for the appearance of anything, cf the erratic motion of the
eyes, But if the positive feedback gets out of hand then the boundary is burst and
you have a meta-system. Think of it this way, the flexility of the autopoietic
systems organization allows it to have internal weather which causes the differences
in the outputs given the same input at different times. This micro weather system
can have little white and black tornados (positive feedback loops contained in the
overall negative environment within the autopoietic systems organization). These
little black and white tornados move around within the sea of negative feedback and
interact to give the distortions. They could be seen as the saddles between attractors
that turned into vorticies. Those contained repulsive centers that force elements
away from the attractors distrupting them perhaps are the source of ecstatic
projection of the world. The world is closed yet projected. So it is true that it is like
an autopoietic system. But autopoietic systems do not have positive feedback
elements only reflexives systems have these and it is this that allows them to learn
1186
based on comparison of actual experiences compared with plans.
I think I still stand by this interpretation. I think perhaps I misunderstood what you
menat by the stasis that comes from homeostasis^2. I thought that was the
production of stasis within the autopoietic system and that it was different from the
invariances within the reflexive system. But it appears that you meant what I am
calling the invariances. So I believe there is a terminiological problem we need to
sort out. But basically if you look at electronic systems distortion is produced from
positive feedback structures and is taken out of these systems using negative
feedback structures. for instance is you get a microphone close to a speaker in a
sterio then you get a positive feedback whine. The circuits that attempt to prevent
this are negative feedback circuits. Not those circuits will attempt to catch a run
away positive feedback and cut it off submitting it to negative feedback after some
threshold is crossed. Likewise we can think of the sea of negative feedback loops
within the autopoietic system as having thresholds that are used to catch the positive
feedback loops before they run away completely. This introduction of thresholds
gives a new element not appearing in the autopoietic system itself. That distinction
(what Bateson calls a difference that makes a difference) makes it possible to
distinguish the cognitive from the living aspect of the autopoietic system and to
distinguish the invariants within the reflexive system that are invisible within the
autopoietic system.
I hope we can continue to explore this aspect of the system to understand better
each other's perspective becaue in general I think we are on to something here that
is very important. The making visible of invariants via distortion (which I think we
are agreeing on) is what allows the cognitive to arise within the reflexive system as
an emergent phenomena which does not appar in the autopoietic sytem as a separate
aspect but only chiasmicly fused to the living aspect. At the reflexive level what is
fused chiasmicly is the social/psychological. In other words both social and
psychologial phenomena are cognitive in different ways. For instance, social
thought is myth.
Anyway lets keep exploring this because I think you have stumbled on a rich vein
which conincided with some thoughts I had upon reading The Field Of
Consciousness again after abut twenty years. Gurwitch's saying that meanings were
timeless really struck me and with Maturna's comment we can place that within an
autopoietic context. But Maturana does not know about the reflexive system (I don't
think; did you find any evidence that he does?) so I would interpret the stasis that he
1187
is talking about as being something that appears between organization and structure
within the autopoietic system and I am trying to extrapolate to the refelexive system
based on Gurwitch's comment about the timelessness of meaning. I think you are
jumping to applying Maturana's comment to the reflexive. As far as I can tell from
reading them they do not know about the reflexive level because it does not show
up in the phenomena they study and they deny that social systems are autopoietic.
Varela says they may exhibit a weaker characteristic of autonomy but not
autopoiesis.
So unless you can prove that Maturana distingishes between autopoietic and
reflexive systems (in which case what we are talking abut is not new) then I would
say that your insight about how homeostasis againsts itself produces stasis must
apply to the relation between organization and structure. It is still a valuable insight
when we find its analogy in the reflexive system as we see the invariances via the
distortions. But the static elments of structure are different from those invariances.
The invariances would be like the constants in nature (plank's constant for instance)
where as the stasis in the structure would be persistent features of physical
structures, like crystaline patterns.
<Begin Quote from Onar Aam personal correspondence>
During the vacation I conceived of an octonion pendulum function inspired by the

words of Hemmingway: "History does not repeat, but it rhymes". In history there
tends to be a pendulum motion: revolution followed by contrarevolution followed
by contra-contra-revolution etc. I've translated this thesis/anti-thesis pattern into a
function. In complex and quaternion algebra the multiplication corresponds to a
rotation. Suppose now that you defined a rotation vector X and its inverse anti-X=
X^-1. These cancel each other out. X * antiX = 1. In terms of rotation this is the
same as rotating a quaternion to some point and back. But this is not the case in the
octonion due to its non-associativity. F*X*antiX usually isn't F, but it resembles.
As such we may say that it "rhymes" with F. By recursively multiplying this new F
with X and antiX we then produce an infinitely varying pendulum. This is the
octonion distortion in action. I don't know if the resulting pendulum swing is
stochastic, chaotic or has a structure. I'll have to check that out.
<End quote from Onar Aam>
This phenomena I would interpret to be completely differnt from the invariance
1188
yielding phenomena. If you look at foucault's the order o fthings you will see that
the first kind of episteme functioned on similitudes. You are really talking about a
mechanism that produces similarity which is a result of the overall Sameness of the
Mirrorhouse/meta-hologram itself. The production of sameness plus the making
visible of invisible invariants seem like they are related to each other as duals
perhaps. Similutudes lead of course to metaphors when Being enters the picture.
They are a way of talking about quality by way of other different things. Since
invariants are usually expressed as quantities it is posssible that this duality is an
expression of the quality/quantity chiasm in some way. Perhaps this is how these
categories arise as different. If we could show that the quality/quantity category
distinction arose from the octonion structure that would be wonderful -- and in fact
perhaps we should look at Kant's other categories and see if we can generate them. I
cant tell you what ain important find it would be if it were true that the categores
were generated from the octonion structure. For instance Kant has One and many as
a category and that is definitely fullfilled by Sameness of the octonions. I will look
into it and find out what the other categores are and we can try that one out.
[END OF WORKING PAPER as of 950801]
13. Social Nature of Space and Time
In an earlier paper I have defined the Matrix as the combination of spacetime and
timespace. Spacetime is the fusion of space and time in relativity theory that
produces an interval which can have different reversibilities between phases based
on the inertial frame of the observer. Timespace is defined by Heidegger and
Minkowski as the causal view of relations between events in spacetime which is
different from the container view. Igvar Johannson exclusively considers only the
container view of spacetime and does not consider its dual which is the causal view.
Where spacetime is composed of x+y+z-t on the one hand timespace is composed
of past-present-future+nowhere. The nowhere is outside the light cones that
Minkowsky talks about. From the point of view of Heidegger nowhere is the always
already lost origin of manifestation of Being in Time. Michael Henry talks about
this in terms of the Essence of Manifestation. It is the equivalent of the unconscious
in psychology -- a realm that is never made present but whose very existence has a
profound effect on every thing that is present.
Recently Onar Aam asked me about the definition of timespace and this produced
as a side effect the realization due to the context of the question that there was an
intrinsic relation between timespace and the quaternion structure that we have dealt
1189
with in other sections of these essays. Let me begin by explaining why we are
interested in the question of the relation of spacetime to the social. It is clear that
there is a relation between the description of relativity theory and what Merleau-
Ponty calls the chiasm of the flesh. The chiasm is reversible non-dual way of
looking at the relations between what are normally construed as dichotomies in
thought. The dichotomies of thought can be seen as the limits of an interval. Within
these limits there are phases associated with the two dichotomous limits and
between these there is a reversibility which may appear in different places from
different points of view. Taking the mobius strip as our model it is clear that these
reversibilities change places so that the distinction between the components of the
dichotomy change depending on the view of the observer. From a global
perspective the two limits are the Same and only locally distinct in a particular
configuration. The changeable reversibility stands as a flaw between the poles of
the dichotomy that is normally hidden because we make black and white
distinctions. But when we admit that distinctions are not black and white then we
see the reversibility between the phases smears out as we focus on the non-duality
at the heart of duality. Merleau-Ponty points out that this phenomena defines the
relations between our mind and body in the mindbody chiasm. Ultimately it is very
confusing what is mind and what is body when we attempt to pin down the
distinction precisely in a way that satisfies multiple view points. Merleau-Ponty
points out that beneath our ideas about perception the noesis and noema become so
mixed together as we realize our embodiment that we can ultimately only think of
ourselves as flesh -- the complete fusion of mind and body. From flesh comes flesh.
So there is a social component that is prior to each individuals experience and this
social component defines first of all the social space and times within the individual
exists as it pulls away from the social space and times to individuate itself within
the reified social field. So from the point of view of ourselves as flesh spaces and
times are projected within that social manifold and differentiate into the abstract a
priori structures we experience as socialized individuals. This is done through the
differentiation of the body schema in a series of genetic steps. Piaget was the first to
study this development in detail through empirical study. Durkheim was the first to
suggest that the philosophical categories where first and foremost social
constructions -- even the a priori schema of the space and time. Abstract concepts
depend upon embodied and genetically developed contents of the primal social
situation set up by reproduction. Igvar Johansson identifies spacetime as his first
category. But he only considers containerized spacetime not the causal timespace
dual. We combine both of these dualism into a fundamental pre-category called the
Matrix which we identify as primarily social in nature and out of which the
1190
abstractions of timespace and spacetime unfold.
Timespace = past - present - future + nowhere (minkowoski & heidegger)
Spacetime = x + y + z - t (einstein)
Notice the dual broken symmetries. These are probably quaternionic. Quaternions
are regularly used to do rotations of vectors in spacetime. Now consider past, future,
and nowhere (eldorado) as i, j & k. The present and t could be construed to be the
same thing. So one view gives rotations in spacetime that are necessary for
something to stand still (i.e. spinnors); while the other view gives rotations of what
is not present in the showing and hiding relations. Past and Future collapse into
absolute time which like nowhere has never been present. So if that is the case then
the other Lie products probably apply as well. What is not present is holographic.
Each moment in the present is like the photographic plate that slices through the
interference pattern of the light.
Let us consider timespace for a moment in relation to the structure of the

quaternion. If we do that we notice that it has a peculiar structure that may be seen
as similar to that of the quaternion.
Figure 263:
past-present-future+nowhere
i r j k
In other words we identify the elements of timespace that are not present with the
imaginary values and the present with the real value of the quaternion. If we apply
the laws of association of the imaginary elements we get the following statements:
o past future = nowhere (absolute past) never present
It has already been noted that the relation between past and future is inessential and
that they together make up something called the absolute past. This is the past of
mythology that is filled with occurrences that never happened but are always being
re-enacted. This is the time before endless time (i.e. some super-rational time that is
always already lost).
o past nowhere = future
1191
If we take the past and combine it with the nowhere we get the opposite of the past
which is the future.
o future nowhere = past
Similarly if we take the future and combine it with the nowhere we get the opposite
of the future which is the past.
o future past = - nowhere (absolute future) never present
Reversing the relation between the future and past gives us the opposite of the
absolute past which is the absolute future. This is the time after endless time (i.e.
some super-rational time that is always already found).
o nowhere past = - future
The negative future is obtained by reversing the relations between nowhere and the
past. The negative future is the one that has been negated by the actualization of
possibilities in the present. The negative future is the realm of unactualized
possibilities that existed for this universe among the pluriverse.
o nowhere future = - past
The negative past is obtained by reversing the relations between nowhere and the
future. The negative past is the one that has been rewritten once the emergent event
has occurred. The negative past is the realm of negated actualities that existed prior
to the arising of the present universe through the advent of the emergent event.
o past nowhere - nowhere past = 2 futures
Two possible futures are created out of the bifurcation of the past by the
unmanifest. One past relates to the universe without the emergent event and the
other relates to the universe with the emergent event. The two futures are also
related to the presence and absence of the emergent event.
o past future - future past = 2 nowheres
When we take the difference between the future that is now past and the past that is
1192
projected into the future we get two unmanifest states which are undecidable. One
of these is the result of the emergent event that causes the projection of the future by
futurists to be derailed and the other is the realization that past futures are
disconnected from our actual path of development and so we are leaving a trail of
unrealized discontinuous universes not an continuous path of progress. The two
nowheres are the two directions out of which emergent events can arise. They can
arise by us changing the structures through which we view the world and they can
arise through new unheard of things arising in existence to challenge us. This is to
say they either come from inside our social worldbuilding project or from the
outside. Either way there is a discontinuity both from the future to the past and from
the past to the future that must be reckoned with eventually.
o future nowhere - nowhere future = 2 pasts
Two possible pasts are created out of the bifurcation of the future by the existence
of the emergent event. As the non-manifest enters into the future different pasts
connected to the bifurcated futures come into existence where there was one past.
Notice that the Lie product is taking the difference between two chiasma. This
means that it must be finding the constants or invariants within the chiasma's
differences from itself.
o future nowhere past = singularity (ijk = -1)
The three non-presences together form a singularity. This singularity is the

emergent eventity.
o 2 futures = singularity (i^2 = -1)
The singularity of the emergent eventity produces two futures -- the road taken and
the road left un-taken.
o 2 nowheres = singularity
Ultimately both the inward and outward direction from which the emergent event
occurs is the same.
o 2 pasts = singularity
1193
The singularity of the emergent eventity produces two pasts -- the road left behind
which did not really happen as we thought and the one we have constructed anew
based on what we now know due to the actualization of the emergent eventity.
o singularity = 2 pasts = 2 futures = 2 nowheres
The singularity is the origin of the true and false past and futures as well as the
inward and outward direction from which deep change proceeds.
So we see that when we take the dichotomies of the timespace minimal system we
get a picture of the arising of manifestation of the genuinely novel from within
manifestation. We get a picture of the non-present imaginary values rotating around
the present allowing the essence of manifestation to enter into presence through the
relations between that unconscious force and the past and future. In psychic
manifestation Jung calls this synchroniety. Buy it occurs in a way that
discontinuous elements are thrust into the present though the advent of the emergent
eventities.
Given this view of timespace we can turn to the view we have of spacetime and
consider it in the light of the quaternion structure. Here we see that quaternions are
regularly used as an elegant way to calculate rotations of things with respect to the
x, y & z axes. When we view that rotation to occur in time then the i becomes the
time axis but when we view that rotation to be of a scalar quantity then this becomes
a convenient notation for the expression of the interaction of forces in 3d spacetime.
In any event rotations is what is needed for spinnors to occur which designate a still
point in spacetime via their 720 degree rotations. So the spacetime component
already has a convenient expression in terms of quaternions. What we have added
here is the notion that timespace has a rotation based on the quaternion that
underlies manifestation and also the idea that these two quaternions combine
together through conjunction to form the octonion structure of the Matrix.
<Begin Quote from personal correspondence with Onar Aam>
This looks very interesting. Recall that the octonion is precisely two autopoietic
rings:
Figure 264:
i E---I
R + / \ + | |
1194
k---j K---J
I guess, we can include R in the ijk ring and then we obtain two squares:
Figure 265:
R--i E--I
| | + | |
k--j K--J
If this holds, R is time ijk is space, E is nowhere and IJK is past-present-future. Or

vice versa. Namely that R is nowhere, ijk is p-p-f, E is Time and IJK is space. I kind
of like the latter interpretation because I've earlier contended that R is nowhere.
And as we've seen, E creates the experience of Time and maybe also of space (IJK).
<End of Quote from Onar Aam>
I like the former interpretation. But there is a fly in the ointment.

Figure 266:
timespace = past - present - future + nowhere
I - J - K + E
|
|__________________
|
spacetime = x + y + z - t
i + j + k - R
Notice the skew. t is really a continuum that embraces past, present and future but t
must be some value and that value is always the present. In vector math the t is
replaced by some scalar that has a certain value. This allows for nice manipulations
of scalars as forces but excludes time. Seems you either have time or the scalar. Do
you know of any way around this? If you have time it is the present and that means
whatever was before it or after it are excluded. This exclusion becomes very strong
in timespace where causality can be precluded if the light cones do not overlap
properly. By this definition there is:
1) dimensional exclusion where separate dimensions must be considered in

conjunction
2) scalar verses time exclusion
3) temporal exclusion where the present excludes past and future
1195
4) light cone exclusion where there are unreachable areas outside the light cone of
a given worldline's present.
Note that the present is in different places in each quaternion. The grouping of IJK
as nowhere, past and future as the non-manifest does not line up with the equations.
So there is an additional skew between the two equations other than their broken
symmetry. I guess I do not understand this skew except that I imagine that this
might be the mechanism for creating the distortion we know about at the octonion
level. Seems like the distortion is a higher level broken symmetry. A kind of meta-
broken symmetry. Broken Broken. I guess that means shattered. This implies that
the matrix is shattered. Each point in spacetime denoted by the dance of the spinnor
is a locus of showing and hiding and is isolated from all the other points in
spacetime by the distortion of the matrix. Now this makes sense of why time is
fragmented into separate time streams. The timestreams are local connections
between shattered spacetime points. We build up an illusory continuity across local
points in the Riemann manifold. The local normal spaces are like the short term
memory in relation to the long term memory of the rest of spacetime. Global
spacetime is interpenetrating. That is the thing that is not seen in physics because
they can only ever see local normal spaces. The local normal spaces are a projection
of the observer. Wherever he projects he can create a local illusory continuity. But
globally the hidden discontinuities are the Heavens that are interstices in the earths
of spacetime. Notice that local illusory continuities are earths and the
discontinuities that appear in the global structure are the heavens. Heavens and
earths intepenetrate such that each patch of earth mirrors all the other patches
through their differences. All the possible localities in Riemann spacetime are
earths. It is only the discontinuities that appear globally that are related to the
heavens. And then ultimately like Plotnitsky says everywhere there is a mixture of
continuity and discontinuity -- the Riemann model is merely a way to preserve our
desire for continuity and hide from ourselves the discontinuities. Actually locally
there is a WILD chaotic mixture of continuity and discontinuity everywhere and all
the local spaces are heterogeneously interactive and interactively heterogeneous. In
other words the local spaces are non-dual and described by chiasm.
Now we see how the matrix structure takes hold of the Riemann manifold. A local
time stream t within a locally connected space x + y + z has disconnected past,
present and nowhere components. The nowhere component is the discontinuity
between it and the next local timestream. That discontinuity is a heaven. Via the
heaven as difference the two local patches mirror holographically each other -- i.e.
1196
they are the Same (similar but differring) Each moment there is a branching forward
and backward in time to create splintered possible worlds of the pluriverse. All the
discontinuities between these possible worlds (as rhizome) are further entries of
heavens into the earths of spacetime. Each moment of space rotation or showing
and hiding by which appearances are rotated into presence is a quaternion that is
mirrored in the octonion of the matrix or in the infinite depths of long term memory
where the division algebras go on indefinitely deep following the progression of the
Pascal triangle. The jeweled net of Indra is the network within which each of the
jewels we find is woven. The matrix of timespace/spacetime is merely the global
connection through disjunction of all the local spaces that are holographically
mirroring. Beyond the matrix is the jeweled net of Indra which is of infinite extent
as the fourfold unfolds and infolds producing a circular mirroring which is the
eternal return of the same beyond our local and global continuities that we project
on the matrix.
This realization of the nature of the Matrix is very significant. I have been worrying
about the problem of spacetime/timespace for years. It is only recently that I started
calling the combination of the two the MATRIX. Early in my time in England I
read Wheeler's book on Relativity theory. It was the first text to start with relativity
theory and work back to non-relativistic history. Relativity theory is much easier to
understand that way. What you see is that relativity theory is all about the structure
of intervals and when you read Merleau-Ponty you see that this is exactly what he
has in mind when he talks about the chiasm and flesh. There is a reversibility
between two phases instead of the extreme limits of the interval. We usually think
in terms of dichotomies which are the representation of the extreme limits of the
interval. When we look into the structure of ideation then we see that there is the
substructure underlying the dichotomy that has a phase structure. This is what is
represented by the chiasm --- an interval with phases and a point of reversibility
between them.
It is a short distance between this realization and the structure of the minimal
system. The minimal system would consist of six intervals and six reversibilities
that interfere with each other in the center. This is the structure of the flaw at the
heart of the minimal system. Now each of the complementary view of the Matrix
has the structure of a minimal system so my inclination was to view spacetime and
timespace as chaiasmic minimal systems. With this recent insight it is possible to
see that the external dichotomies themselves can be understood using the
quaternion as our guide and that the two quaternions together have the octonion
1197
structure which implies that the Matrix is reflexive. This is a gigantic step forward
as it tells us that the most basic category spacetime/timespace is of the form of the
octonion. Look at Igvar Johannson's ontology and you will see that spacetime is the
most fundamental of his categories. Similarly with Kant -- the projection of space
and time as absolutes is even prior to the categories. It was Durkheim who had the
basic insight that the categories are social. So if the most basic category has the
form of the matrix and that has the form of the octonion then we can understand that
this fundamental projection is social. It makes spacetime/timespace much more
complex -- it implies that it is a showing and hiding regime. It contains the concept
of the essence of manifestation (Henry) as the nowhere. So here is the connection.
Matrix Logic has the truth structure of showing and hiding and the nowhere-past-
future structure of the timespace matrix shows how the showing and hiding
structure rotates into the present. NOW we see that Matrix logic _IS_ (crossed out)
the Logic of the Matrix. Matrix logic shows us the truth values of the showing and
hiding regime whereas the quaternion structure of the paired dichotomies (with
broken symmetry ---+ or +++-) is the reality of rotation of things in and out of
presence. When we consider timestreams within the matrix we see that they are the
means by which we deal with the shattered structure of the matrix. By creating local
continuities and allowing intertransformablity between them we are able to deal
with the shattered nature of the matrix and bridge the inherent distortions within it.
The intertransformability across timestreams is the identity relations of the matrix.
So all the pieces fit together. Being has four parts:
Figure 267:
Reality -- Rotations of past-nowhere-future into the present
Rotations of spinnors within spacetime
Identity -- Intertransformability between timestreams (short
term memory)
Truth -- Matrix Logic of showing and hiding
Metaphor -- Progressive bisection of Qualities
The fourfold that unfolds and infolds exists as the Matrix. When the fourfold
bifurcates into positive and negative fourfolds then Being is created with its four
parts. Prior to that bifurcation of the fourfold there is only void and things that pop
out of the void seen in terms of Chi and Li which break down into quantity-quality-
truth-reality with the bifurcation.
This is a grand synthesis that validates many of our intuitions and explains how
spacetime/timespace can be social thus making the social the foundation of
1198
everything because everyone agrees it is the most basic category (or is even a pre-
category). Spacetime/timespace is itself social because it is shattered and whole at
the same time via the octonion structure. It is a perfect whole that is exactly equal to
its parts like a perfect number. We can view spacetime/timespace as a lack by
seeing it as something that holds and encompasses everything like a meta-system.
Or we can see timespace/spacetime as a surplus if we consider the things as merely
articulations or warpages of timespace/spacetime itself and thus a system. But both
of these views miss the essential point that spacetime/timespace// timespace/
spacetime has the structure of the octonion and perfect balance between these
extremes.
[END OF WORKING PAPER as of 950822]
14. The Sedenion (Sedecimnion)
Beyond the octonion is an infinite depth of non-division algebras following the

differentiation of the triangle of Pascal. The next level down from the octonion is
the sedeciminon which has sixteen imaginaries and is the first non-division algebra.
We think we need to look at this level if we are to understand the more shallow
levels of the special systems. We call this level the recursive system. And we ask
what could explain the difference between the division algebras from the non-
division algebras? This level represents the unadulterated and pure meta-system. So
if we look at our algebraic models we assume that the difference between this level
and the other levels must be a loss of a property. But there are not many properties
left to loose. The remaining properties are:
Figure 268:
Reflexive a = a'
Symmetric ab = ab' == ab' = ab
Distributive a(b+c) = ab + ac
Transitive a > b, b > c, a > c
Of these properties the most reasonable one to loose is the transitive property. I do
not know if mathematical theory supports this loss of the transtive property between
the division and the non-division algebras but we will develop the consequences of
this theory as an exercise.
If the transitive property is lost then we can no longer distinguish linear orders and
this means that all that is left at the recursive level is the partial ordering of sets. In
fact both the linear order without distance and the partial ordering with distance
must vanish. When that occurs all we have left is a non-linear metasystemic
1199
landscape.
This also explains why it is possible to multiply two nonzero 16nion numbers and
get zero. This is because the timestreams have lost their linearity, they have ineffect
broken up into partially ordered sets and so when these sets are broken by non-
linear discontinuities it is possible to return to zero through multiplication. This
circularity of the timestreams gives us suddenly circular time as opposed to the
illusory continuity of linear time. It means that multiplication and division fuse into
a single mega-operator in which you do not know if you are multiplying or dividing
when you apply it.
What we have is a field of partially ordered quaternions. And we believe that this
the case for all further deeper levels of the Pascal triangle. The deeper levels are
merely more and more complex partially ordered sets with reflexivity and
symmetry but no other properties. This is the structure of Indra's net of
interpenetration. It is rhizomatic and holographic. Every quaternion is like a
mirrored sphere that is holonic and holographic. Each of the parts contain the
whole. And each quaternion is interchangeable with every other quaternion in the
net that it mirrors.
The transitive property is the fundamental property of Category Theory. When we

loose this property the mathematical system of the non-division algebras are no
longer even a category and thus loose most of their interest for mathematicians.
They become subject to set theory only. This is probably why the non-division
algebras are not treated by mathematicians they have lost all the algebraic
properties and do not really deserve to be called an "algebra" any longer. They are
the non-algebraic extension of the algebraic numbers which actually end with the
octonion which is still very weak. But because they are not of interest to
mathematicians does not mean they are not of interest to systems theorists who are
interested in the properties of meta-systems. In order to understand systems we
must contrast them with meta-systems that are analgous to the non-division
algebras and we must have an understanding of the partial systems / partial meta
systems we call the special systems that exist between these two extreems.
Now what does this mean for our understanding of the meta-system. What we
know of the meta-system is that it has a lack that perfectly compensates for the
system. Each special system is a partial meta-system and when we get to the level
of the 16nion we enter the utter wildness of Indra's net. The meta-system has what
1200
Bataille calls a global economy as opposed the the restricted economy of the
system. Each special system is a half way house between the utter wildness of the
meta-system and the utter tameness of the system. The meta-system is inherently
complemntary. We see this in the annihilation of the multiplication of 16nion
numbers. This annihilation by multiplication is the perfect model for the magician
meta-systems of Goertzel. In the meta-system the final operator is complementarity.
Now the sets of operators we have are as follows:
1) Creation by the production of a figure on the ground of illusory continuity. [Real

Algebra, Complete and Consistent Systems or Restricted Economies]
2) Annihilation arising through the imaginary numbers out of the -1 singularity

within the illusory continuity which are globally the same as the reals by the
intertransformability through algebraic properties. [Imaginary Algebra,
Dissipative Special Systems]
3) Mutual action arising through the loss of the commutative property so that
actions cannot be reversed to be undone but require a series of compensotory
actions. Out of this the side-effects of actions arise. The side effects are equal
to the asymmetries in actions. [Quaternion Algebra, Autopoietic Special
Systems]
4) Gestalt pattern formation arising though the loss of the associative property
which makes this level inherently social. Unique patterns are created that
cannot be symmetrically reversed. [Octonion Algebra, Reflexive Special
System]
5) Complementarity arising thorugh the loss of the transitive property. With this
loss we are suddenly in a non-linear system where the timestreams are
punctuated with discontinuities. Magicians and anti-magicians arise at this
level which are the basis for modeling discontinuous processes. These
complementary things are created and annihilated as a system of virtual
particles. Here we are not talking about the creation and annihilation of a
single element but of dual complementary elements from out of the field of
virtual particles. When these virtual particles are caught up in more than a
partial ordering they become real in the sense that the various properties of
algebraic systems act like conservation laws. [Sedenion "Non-algebra",
Recursive Special System]
1201
Now arises the problem that perhaps the name of the reflexive system is in
appropriate. It is the reflexive and symmetric properties that are left at the Sedenion
level when all the other algebraic properites are subtracted. So perhaps this level
should be called reflexive and not the octonion level. Onar Aam pointed out in
personal correspondence that at the octonion level the reflections when described
by hypersets have direction. At the Sedenion level the directionality of intention or
the light ray of the reflection gets lost through the loss of the transitive property. So
even though things can reflect themselves there is no orientation or directionality of
their mutual reflection. Reflex-ion means a reaction back on something by
something else. This is lost at the Sedenion level. Reflection at this higher level is
only self reflection. Symmetry is self symmetry with respect to the equal sign. At
the Sedenion level onward there is complete atomization where every thing is
isolated with itself alone. What ever partial orders the thing participate in do not
give it any response. Without directionality to intention and the light wave carrying
out the reflection there is no sense of who is reflecting who. There is only a
distortionless mirroring of all the quaternions in Indra's net of all other quaternions
in Indra's net. But what is this isolation than an image of recursion. The self
reflection is like the program that calls itself endlessly. Its paramaters in each case
is the reflection it has of the entire web. So it is recursion without a differnce or with
every possible difference which are nihilistic opposites. In recursion something
gives itself itself infinitely or finitely or it calls itself infinitely or finitely. Infinite
recursions are uninteresting. It is only recursions with finite length that are of
interest. And in fact every pascal level is finite even though there are infinite levels.
They are filled with quaternions which are reflective balls. Like atoms all
quaternions are interchangeable. The only difference is the reflection of all the
others from its particular position. But you cannot tell which direction the light ray
of reflection is traveling so it is as if the reflection process was static. The only
difference in these levels of indra's net beyond the octonion is the distortion of the
space between the quaternions. Which is to say if octonions are pressent then they
cause the space to be distorted and the reflections to change.
We know that there are 15 octonions within a Sedenion. This agrees with our
analysis of the Minimal Methods which shows that there are four dissipative
systems among the minimal methods and these produce six virtual autopoietic
systems and fifteen virtual reflexive systems. It turns out that three of these are
ultra-efficient. So we would expect three of the fifteen octonions in the Sedenion to
be ultra-efficient which in this case may mean nondistorting -- or rather distorting
but in such a way that all their distortions cancel out. It is still necessary to look for
1202
these ultra-efficient octonions. But the point is that it is the presence of distorting
octonions that makes the reflections within the Sedenion interesting. Further it is
the mutual action between quaternions and the annihilations between imaginaries
which defines the structure of the fourfold itself. All theses distorting, side-
effecting, and destructive elements is what gives the Sedenion its interesting
qualities. And the same is true of all the other deeper levels of pascals triangle that
defines the structure of the jeweled net of Indra.
The fourfold is atomizing until at some level of Pascal's triangle there is a

quaternion for every atom in the universe. The inner noumena of each of those
atoms is a quaternion holographic structure. So here we see how the jeweled net of
Indra can cover every single thing in the universe and enfold them into a single all
encompassing hologram where each node reflects all the others and where all nodes
are interchangable. What is occuring in the universe is an illusion created as little
patches of linear time arise out of the circular time of the network. Those patches
are the octonions where distortions appear within the net. They contain the
quaterions that mututually interact with side effects. These contain the imaginaries
that annihilate one another to create the form of the fourfold and each of these
imaginaries can be seen as an illusory real timestream from some perspective. The
real time streams are build up through the accretion of orders. There partial ordering
is all that is supported by Indra's net itself. So the linear order without distance and
partial order with distance that lead to the complete order appear as dual stages of
ordering that under write the creation of timestreams that then are split length wise
until at the Sedenion level they are split for the first time crosswise creating circular
time. Circluar time is dependent on partial ordering and it supports the creation of
the raw potential of all possible universes in which the events are partially ordered.
So we rise out of the parallel possible universes by creating the duals of linar order
without distance and partial order with distance moving to full ordering. On the
other end we are adding properties one by one to create the algebraic system. Order
of rules of intertransformablity and ordering of the timestreams. If we view that the
complete algebra actually exists for both the real and imaginary numbers then there
are just two speical systems on one side and two kinds of order on the other side.
Partial order and the Sedenion are equivilent in this case. but the two kinds of order
are duals where as the two kinds of special systems (quaternion and octonion) are
layered. So we have multiplicity and layering appearing on either side of the full
algebraic system. This takes us back to the laws of pattern/form formulation of the
elements by G. Spencer Brown.
Figure 269:
1203
Something / Nothing
Multiplicity / Layering
We can add to these the following characteristics:

Figure 270:
Sets / Relations [N^2] {Quantitites}
Hypersets / Hyperrelations [See Goertzel CHAOTIC LOGIC]
Interpenetrations [2^N] {Qualities}
Sets are the venn diagrams that we can draw around portions of the quaternions in
Indra's web. Relations are the non-directional unintentions that incedentally connect
quaternions in Indra's net. Sets can be well founded or they can be members of
themselves and thus not well founded. In that case they embody paradox produce
hypersets and hyperrelations. Each quaternion in the net can be seen as the
interpenetrating with all the others and in fact that is what gives the network its
qualities as opposed to its quantitative aspect. Each level of pascal's triangle can be
seen as the possible interpenetration of some number of things. So in some sense
the whole of Indra's network is not well founded as the quantaties produced at a
level of pascals triange are just the qualities of the interpenetration of some smaller
set of things. Pascal's triangle mediates the reversiblity between quality and
quantity. A few things exist. They interpenetarate. This gives rise to some smaller
granular level of things that themselves interpenetrate. What interpenetrates are
holons in the quaternion sense where each part is at the same time the whole. The
whole of the fourfold at what ever level of pascal's triangle we are speaking of has
external sets and relations between set members. These can be non-well-founded or
not. If they are not-well-founded we see the entire fourfold as a hologram. If it is
well founded we see it as a fragmented to some level of granularity. These
fragments interpenetrate and produce a lower level of granularity to the fourfold
which is either again a hologram or fragmented. It is an amazing structure.
[END OF WORKING PAPER AS OF 951009]
* * *
The 16nions are described in this article:
“Binary and Ternary Sedenions” L. Sorgsepp and J. Lohmus Hadronic Journal 4 327-353
(1981)
1204
There is also a book by the same authors called:
Non-associative Algebras In Physics (Hadronic Press 1994 ISBN 0-911767-71-1)
In the article they define Binary Sedenions through the repetation of the Cayley-
Dickson process using Octonions as the starting point. After defining Binary
Sedeniions with their lost properties they go on to try to develop a ternary algebra
which might be similar to creating a jordan algebra by creating a new
multiplication. That ternary algebra has no interest for us as it is exactly the weak
properties of the sedenions that we wish to study as a model of meta-systems and a
context for the special systems and general systems.
Still not clear exactly what property is lost. But it seems it cannot be the transitive
property because another book I have says that the transitive property is logical not
part of the algebraic axioms. Looks like the transitive property is part of the
observers frame of reference not part of the albebra object. Also yet another book
says that if you lose the transitive property you do not even have partial order and I
know that cannot be right.
Here is the multiplication table of the sedenions.

Figure 271:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 -0 3 -2 5 -4 -7 6 9 -8 -11 10 -13 12 15 -14
2 -3 -0 1 6 7 -4 -5 10 11 -8 -9 -14 -15 12 13
3 2 -1 -0 7 -6 5 -4 11 -10 9 -8 -15 14 -13 12
4 -5 -6 -7 -0 1 2 3 12 13 14 15 -8 -9 -10 -11
5 4 -7 6 -1 -0 -3 2 13 -12 15 -14 9 -8 11 -10
6 7 4 -5 -2 3 -0 -1 14 -15 -12 13 10 -11 -8 9
7 -6 5 4 -3 -2 1 -0 15 14 -13 -12 11 10 -9 -8
8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 8 -11 10 -13 12 15 -14 -1 -0 -3 2 -5 4 7 -6
10 11 8 -9 -14 -15 12 13 -2 3 -0 -1 -6 -7 4 5
11 -10 9 8 -15 14 -13 12 -3 -2 1 -0 -7 6 -5 4
12 13 14 15 8 -9 -10 -11 -4 5 6 7 -0 -1 -2 -3
13 -12 15 -14 9 8 11 -10 -5 -4 7 -6 1 -0 3 -2
14 -15 -12 13 10 -11 8 9 -6 -7 -4 5 2 -3 -0 1
15 14 -13 -12 11 10 -9 8 -7 6 -5 -4 3 2 -1 -0
1205
page 333 ibid [I have not double checked this table after entry]
<begin quote of article>
Some properties of the canonical bases of the preceding algebras have been
retained:
1) squares of basic units equal -e(sub 0)
2) bacic units are anti-commutative
3) multiplication of basic units is alternative
(NB! It does not mean tha the algebra itself is alternative)
The anti-associativity of noncyclic triples of the basic units which we had in the
case of the octonions
(ei ej)ek = -ei(ej ek) ijk =\ 123, 145, 176, 246, 257, 347, 365
is now invalid
REMARK
ijk or ei, ej, ek, ijk = 1, 2, ... 15 form a cyclic triple (cycle) when ei ej = +- ek
according to the multiplication table and a non-cyclic triple otherwise, cycles with
ej ej = ek are positive cycles; there are at (sic "in") all 35 positive cycles for binary
sedenions.)
This fact is directly related to the non-alternativity of binary sedenion in general,

i.e. (AB)B =\ A(BB), (AA)B =\ A(AB) for general elements.
<something about representation deleted>
Because of the nonalternativity of the BS-algebra L-,R-matricies do not form a

basis of regular bimodule representation, as i\t was in the case of octonions. The
later were all anti-commutative and from them a Clifford algebra could be
constructed. For binary sedenions these properties also get lost. The
1206
nonanticommutativity does not allow to linerarize the quadratic form (as a result of
such linearization the Dirac equqtion was found at (sic) a time).
<end quote>
SO IT APPEARS THE ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY IS LOST
this is clearly a secondary property not a primary algebraic property like the
trasitions between the other hypercomplex algebras.
However equations such as the Laplace equation does not linearize. So linearity is
lost in some crucial sense and this may be equivalant to losing the transitive
property except as a property of the object algebra and not as a property of the
observer of the object algebra.
The authors go on to talk about ternary sedenions in which they derive their own
new multiplication operator that gets back some of the lost properties
<begin quote>
To restore alternativity for general elements, related antiassociativity, and the usual
form of Laplace equations [linearity], we must rebuild our binary sedenion algebra
into an albebra with a ternary product.
<end quote>
Jordan algebras have a ternary product due to 1/2[ab+ba] but I cannot figure out if
the sedenion ternary product formulated by the authors gives a jordan type algebra.
Probably not or they would have mentioned it.
I think it is very significant that the imaginaries of the sedenion form a tetrahedron.
<quote from Tony (Frank) Smith, personal correspondance>
--------- sedenions ---------
The sedenion stuff is very interesting. Although I think the full sedenion algebra
loses too much structure to be directly useful, now I think that some parts of the
1207
sedenions are very good representatives of some octonion structures involving 2-

dim or 2-dim octonion spaces.
There is nice geometry behind the sequence (see the book of Lohmus, Paal and
Sorgsepp)
1-quaternion 7-octonion 35-sedenion
Quaternion ijk can be represented as 3 points on a circle (which is, in projective

space, a line). There are 3 points. There is 1 (projective) line with 3 points. The line
is ijk.
Octonions IJK ijk E can be represented as a triangle: 3 vertices of the triangle;

midpoints of 3 edges of the triangle; and the 1 center of the triangle. There are
3+3+1 = 7 points. There are 7 (projective) lines each with 3 points. The lines are ijk,
IkJ, JiK, KjI, JEj, KEk, IEi.
Sedenions can be represented as a tetrahedron: 4 vertices v of the tetrahedron;

midpoints e of 6 edges of the tetrahedron; centers f of 4 faces of the tetrahedron; and
center Tof the 1 entire tetrahedron. There are 4+6+4+1 = 15 points. There are 35
(projective) lines each with 3 points. You have already written them down.
Geometrically, they are of the form: 4 like eee (where eee are all on the same
face); 6 like vev (these are the edges); 12 like vfe (where v is opposite e on face f);
3 like eTe (where e is opposite e on the whole tetrahedron T); 4 like vTf (where v
is opposite f on T); and 6 like fef (where the edge of e is not on f or f, that
is, f and f are opposite to e).
In my model, I use 3x3 octonion matrices. They seem to be related to an octonion

triple product that is related to tiality. The sedenions (with their ternary or triple
product) can be represented as a map from 16x16 (real) matrices plus 16 (real) dim
column vectors into 16 (real) dim column vectors.
The 16x16 real matrices are the Clifford algebra of Spin(8), the 28-dim Lie algebra
of 8x8 antisymmetric matrices.
The symmetric 8x8 matrices have 64 - 28 = 36 = 35 + 1 dimensions, which I think

may be represented by your 35 quaternion triples plus an identity (for the real axis).
1208
So it DOES NOW seem to me that the sedenions might be yet another useful
representation algebra for the structures that I use in my model.
<end quote>
There are two other articles by these authors in the MathAbstracts CDrom from
1987 on but I think they might be in russian. There are no other articles on
sedenions mentioned on the CDROM.
In the references they list 8 articles on 16 element algebras including Sylvester, J.J.
On quaternions, nonions, sedenions, etc (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circular 3, 7-9
(1884).
Non-alternating algebras of the Cayley Dickson process of degree four or higher

seems to be the most correct designation for these algebras. There does not seem to
be a name for these algebras.
15. Sameness/Difference and Static/Dynamic Couples
In this section we wish to explore an alternative way of looking at the four kinds of
Being. We have already mentioned the difference between Homeostasis that
appears in the Autopoietic special system and Heterodynamics that appears in the
Reflexive special system. In this section we will look at the other cross relation
between Sameness/Difference and Static/Dynamic in order to create another model
of the four kinds of Being. To be precise we will create a quadrature based on these
two dichotomies as follows:
HomeoDynamic Global = Continuity > Dissipative > Pure Presence
HomeoDynamic Local = Embeddings of Information in Spacetime -- (Determinate)
Take the information embeddings and place them in a time stream. The timestream
can bifurcate without losing the algebraic properties of intertransformation between
timestreams. Continuity of the timestreams is the background that makes the pure
presence of what is embedded in the timestream possible. The bifurcated time
stream has the form of an Escher waterfall and is therefore a model of a dissipative
system. The soliton is an example of an ultra-efficient system modeled on this level
of special system. Notice by this analysis both the real and the dissipative system
exist together as duals that produce the creation and annihilation operators.
1209
HeteroStasis Global = Maintain Organization > Autopoietic > Process Being

HeteroStasis Local = Maintain Variables with feedback -- (probability)
When we move up to HeteroStasis then what is local is the structure of the

variables that are maintained with feedback. These nodes in the autopoietic network
are probabilistic in that different nodes can substitute for each other without
changing the overall organization. That overall organization is maintained
homeostatically at a higher logical type than the maintenance of the values in the
variables that make up the autopoietic network. The difference between
organization and structure is a global/local distinction. The maintenance of the
organization is autopoietic. We loose the algebraic property of commutativity so
asymmetric mutual actions become the operator at this level. Superconductivity is a
physical example of this kind of special system. This is related to Process Being
because we see the process of the continual remanifesting of the Same within the
timestreams. The self-organization is a model of Ontological Monism. The
autopoietic system is its own ground because it is applying its own patterning to
itself relentlessly.
HeteroDynamic Global = Distortion and Discontinuity > Reflexive -- Hyper Being
HeteroDynamic Local = Distributed Autonomous Parallel Agents -- (Possibility)
When we move to the next level there are two autopoietic systems and
discontinuity (the mirror) and distortion appear between them. This is because we
lose the associative property. The operator that appears is gestalt pattern formation
because associations of elements in groups become important due to the loss of
association. At the local level there is the action of the essence of manifestation as
Differance (Derrida's differing and deferring). At the global level there is
annihilation(physus) and cancellation (logos) that appears with Hyper Being. There
are eight time streams with two autopoietic systems or four dissipative systems.
The example of this kind of system is the ultra-efficiency I found in the nesting of
the minimal design methods.
HeteroStasis Global = Granular circular spaces > Recursive > Wild Being
HeteroStasis Local = Fractal Variety -- (propensity)
Finally we move beyond the special systems out into the pure wildness of the meta-
system itself. The special systems are partial meta-systems and partial systems. The
meta-system has inherent duality. It is both origin and arena for systems. But its
form is essentially that of chaos and strange attractors. At the local level there are
1210
recursive cells that call themselves producing fractals which give endless self-
similar variety. At the global level there is the folding of the phase space. I think
this folding is related to the non-division algebras giving circularity to the
timestreams because multiplication can lead to zero for tow non-zero numbers.
When you take the local fractals and embed them into the folded phasespace then
you get the form of chaos. Chaos give us the underlying propensities which will in
each unique situation influence the conversion of possibilities into probabilities.
These recursions in the meta-system underlies the reflexiveness. In other words in
the reflexive system we live on the edge of chaos between too much and too little
positive feedback that we add to the negative feedback that forms the autopoietic
system. But when we move the the reflexive level the instability of the edge of
chaos is replaced by the circularity that creates granular spacetime that comes from
recursiveness.
What is beyond the recursive meta-system? Finer grained recursiveness of further

layers of non-division algebras that each have a finer grained interpenetrating
structure to endless levels of depth.
So this represents a change in my thinking. Wild Being is the interface between the
recursive and the reflective. Just as Hyper Being is the interface between the
reflective and the autopoietic, Process Being is the interface between the autopoietic
and the dissipative, and Pure Presence is the interface between the dissipative and
the real restricted economy of the greater than the sum of its parts system.
Each kind of Being acts as the interface between two specific kinds of system,
special system , or meta-system. Thus they have aspects related to both and this is
what causes them to be indeterminate and undecidable in their essence and that is
what causes them to transform in different contexts. This is why they can combine
in different ways to give us various forms of synergetic synthetic jewels.
But what is different in my thinking is that I have always seen Wild Being as within
the purview of the special systems. But I have at times felt it was necessary to
project the social onto the void itself. This solves that problem. Wild Being is
partially within and partially outside in the emptiness. That is what makes it so wild.
It has an aspect of no-form and this is why it can act as a partial model of non-
duality.
Homeostais is orthogonal to heterodynamics.
1211
But also, homeodynamics is also orthogonal to heterostasis.
And all four impinge on each other to form the synergetic jewels that combine the
four types of Being and reflect the synthetic property of the world.
16. Kinds of Being in relation to the Noumena.
The different kinds of Being can now be seen as permutations of Static/Dynamic

and Stasis/Dynamism. These combine synergetically to give us a complete model of
Manifestation. But as we know within Manifestation is the unmanifest represented
by Henry's Essence of Manifestation. We can identify the part of manifestation that
is purely imananent, i.e. that never appears) with the Kantian Noumena. When we
do this we come to ask ourselves what is the relation between the Noumena and
Manifestation. An answer to this question that recently occurred to me after talking
with my son about a class assignment that asked what was the nature of "truth" and
"reality" is as follows. We know that in the Greek truth, reality and identity are all
parts of Being. In my book The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The
Void these parts of manifestation are permuted to form what is called the trigrams
of Being (named after the trigrams in the Chinese I Ching oracle). The trigrams of
Being are as follows
Chang's Types of Interpenetration

Figure 272:
Interpenetration HOLOID = identity,
truth, reality
Mutual Support HOLON (Koestler) INTEGRA
Mutual Interaction NOVUM EPOCH
Logical Connection ESSENCING EVENTITY
None EPHEMERON = difference,
falsehood,
unreality
The Holoid is the image of Wholeness which represents the ideal of

interpenetration. This concept is due to George Leonard.
The Holon is a the idea of the Janus faced thing that is both whole and part at the
same time. This idea is due to Arthur Koestler.
The Integra is the uniqueness of the combination of quantity and quality in a thing
beyond the essence of its kindness. It is a specific combination of LI and
1212
CHI. This idea is due to George Leonard but he does not call it the integra.
The Novum is the the emergent event.
The Epoch is the interval between emergent events when things are relatively
stable.
Essencing is the unfolding of the essence of the thing.
Eventity is the Event (Verb) and Entity (Noun) non-dual representation of the
thing.
Ephemeron is the state of war and illusion that is Hollow which is opposite
Wholeness.
Between the Holoid and the Ephemeron there are various combinations of Truth,
Reality, and Identity and their opposites.
In The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The Void these are taken as
the three sub-concepts of Being. But in the conversation with my son, Aiyub, it
occurred to us that perhaps these three concepts referred to the noumena and not to
Being and that they were quaternionic.
If this is true then we have the following constructs:

Figure 273:
truth reality identity = singularity (= noumena)
truth reality = identity
identity reality = truth
identity truth = reality
reality truth = - identity (non-identity)
reality identity = - truth (falsehood)
truth identity = - reality (dream, unreality)
truth reality - reality truth = 2 identity = singularity
truth reality + (unreality) truth = 2 identities
truth identity - identity truth = 2 reality = singularity
truth identity + (non-identitity) truth = 2 realities
identity reality - reality identity = 2 truth = singularity
identity reality + (dream) identity = 2 truths
reality identity + (non-identity) reality = 2 truths
1213
What these equations are telling us is something very fundamental. It is that there is
a relation between truth, reality and identity such that each of them contains the
others as its parts. They are all holons with respect to each other and form a
holographic Holoid. The quaternionic structure of their relation is in this case the
integra. That integrity is described best by the Hyperset theory of Non-well-founded
sets (i.e. sets that can be members of themselves. Notice that in the case of
quaternions they are all members of each other but not members of themselves.
Thus the quaternionic construction is precisely half way between set theory and
hyperset theory. It is a theory of perfect sets that are all members of each other but
not members of themselves. This goes along with the perfect balance between
surplus and deficit that we find in the special systems.
What the three holons combine into is the singularity or noumena that is hidden
within manifestation and is purely immanent and never appears (i.e. the essence of
manifestation). They do not combine to form the subparts of Being as I supposed in
my earlier work. Thus they tell us about the relation between manifestation and the
non-manifest. As such they posit that the unmanifest noumena is indicated when
ever there are two truths, two realities, or two identities. Two truths is equivalent to
para-consistency of Graham Priest and thus indicate undecidability. Two realities
are equivalent to para-completeness and thus indicate indeterminateness. This is
equivalent to the theory of parallel worlds or universes. Two identities are
equivalent to para-identicalness or Sameness (in Heidegger's sense) and thus
indicate distinguishability. The noumena is undecidable, indeterminate, and
indistinguishable. We enter its arena every time there are two competing truths,
realities, or identities. But also the noumena itself is the same as truth, reality and
identity combined. In other words you cannot know the truth, reality and identity of
something at the same time. So instead you can only know either truth and reality as
identity OR identity and truth as reality OR reality and identity as truth. The
unknowable heart of this trade-off is called RTA (cosmic harmony) in the Indo-
european tradition.
But the formulas also tell us that these holonic components are not commutative
and so that when we reverse them we turn one of the holonic parts into its opposite
(falsehood, illusion or difference). When we subtract the results of two such
reversals for any pair we get a duplication of the third element. So for instance
"truth reality - reality truth = double identity = noumena." This really tells us that
"truth reality plus dream truth" throws us into an identity crisis. In other words if
there is a truth in reality and a truth in a dream then we are confounded over the
1214
identity if the truths. Similarly, "identity reality - reality identity = two truths =
noumena." This really tells us that when there are two identities separated by
reality and a dream then we have a crisis of truth. Or finally "identity truth - truth
identity = two realities = noumena." This says that when you have two identities
mediated by the difference between truth and falsehood that this throws you into
two realities and thus the noumena.
If this is true about the truth, reality and identity in the Greek language relating to
the noumena and not to Being as a whole then this is a deep theorem about the
nature of existence. Truth is about language statements. Reality is about the
actuality of what appears. Identity mediates between these two allowing verification
between statements and the actuality of what appears. The three together form the
basis of verification which is the lowest kind of truth related to pure presence. There
are actually four kinds of truths related to each meta-level of Being. These are as
follows:
Figure 274:
Pure Presence = verification which is the truth of science since Descartes.
Process Being = the truth of manifestation itself (if it appears it has a certain fundamental level of
truth because it has appeared in the clearing of Being.
Hyper Being = unconscious or deep truth such as that which we see being revealed in the
Oedipus play.
Wild Being = collective unconscious deepest possible truth which is that mystery projected by
the the intersubjective cohort working together. For instance the primal scene of The Well
and The Tree projected by Indo-europeans is this kind of deepest truth. An other example
is the enigma of the Sphinx, of the plague, of the fate of the king for the city of Thebes.
As you an see each kind of truth gets deeper first being only a correspondence
within manifestation then becoming equal to manifestation itself then becoming the
unmanifest for one individual and finally becoming the unmanifest for all
individuals together.
Similarly we can talk about levels of reality and identity related to the meta-levels.
Figure 275:
Pure Presence = complete identity such as a = a
Process Being = Sameness = Belonging Together
Heidegger points out in IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE that pure identity needs difference to
reaffirm itself and shows that Sameness as belonging together is a deeper form of identity
which is not so fragile.
Hyper Being = Eternal Return
But we can also see that at the level of the Essence Manifestation there is also a kind of identity in
1215
which something must pass through not just difference but a non-manifest state to become
the Same with itself. This is captured very well by Nietzsche in his idea of the Eternal
Return of the Same. This says we must lose what belongs with us in order to realize it
fully. Absence makes the heart grow fonder captures this idea.
Wild Being = Dialectical Identity
Dialectical Identity must not just stand up to difference, and absence but also
contradiction. As Hegel tells us we must allow contradictions to be integrated into a
thing before it can really be the same with itself through its experience of the Other.
Dialectical identity is the furthest reaches of what we can comprehend before we
fall into the complementarities of the Meta-system (global economy).
Figure 276:
Pure Presence = Reality is what appears oppressively. This is the force of dualism which posits
the oppressive and colonizing other.
Process Being = Master Slave Dialectic. As Hegel tells us the Master becomes the Slave and vice
versa. Dualities exchange places so that no oppression lasts but is only replaced by
another.
Hyper Being = The oppressor does not manifest. Instead we oppress ourselves in the Name of the
absent one. Lacan talks about this as the Symbolic oppression of the Name of the Father.
Wild Being = We realize the awful truth that we are the oppressors ourselves and we are
oppressing ourselves.
Each meta-level of truth, reality and identity operates as a quaternionic holon

combined into a holoid with a specific integrity. With their opposites they form a
three dimensional space with a specific combination of the three pairs of the
characteristics of the noumena. These are the ways the noumena that does not
appear itself appears. The noumena appears in the distortions of truth, reality and
identity within manifestation. The combination of the noumena of all the things and
the manifestation is the world. Within the world one of the most basic noumena are
the intersubjective cohort. Each one of them are like monads seemingly trapped in a
solipsistic universe. But we know that they share identities, truths and realities. This
occurs at the octonionic reflexive level where these autopoietic dissipative special
systems form symbiotic relations based on not just reciprocity but synergistic
harmony.
The deep theorem of the Greeks which relates truth, reality and identity to the
noumena within manifestation shows that there is an intrinsic relation between
language within which active contradictions (para-consistency) can be expressed,
the pluriverse of parallel universes, and the uncertainty relations of observers to
quantum experimental results. In other words, parallel universes is the dual of the
1216
concept of uncertainty as David Deutsch has pointed out. But the dual of each of
these is the expression of active contradictions in language which is the basis of
Hegelian Philosophy. We can solve the conundrum of the parallel universes by
applying Magicians theory of Goertzel. What we say is that there are not infinite
universes created but these created universes that go in opposite tacts due to
undecidability annihilate each other in the same way that Magicians and Anti-
magicians annihilate each other. What is left is the intersubjectively designated as
real world since magicians must work together to nominate and vote on who will
exist in the next cycle of their life-cycle. Similarly the uncertainty between the life
and death of Schrodinger's cat takes us into the noumena, or the language of
contradictions. These manifest themselves in the Magicians model as the inability
of the magicians to last over time by themselves since we are assuming
discontinuity not continuity. It manifests as the chaotic basis of language which can
support active contradictions. The language is what the magicians write and writing
as Derrida has shown contains an infection of DifferAnce.
17. Return to the Quantum Model of Consciousness
The quantum model of consciousness was borrowed from Jahn and Dunne Margins
Of Reality toward the beginning of this series of Essays. We have learned that this
model is not a sphere but instead an ellipsoid with two foci. One foci (1) hides the
symmetries of consciousness spoken of by Matte Blanco. The other foci (-1) hides
the differentiating imaginaries and the genesis of the special systems. We have
spent most of our time exploring the differentiation of the imaginaries in this series
of essays. However, we now return to look at the ellipse of quantum consciousness
again. Consciousness is of course only another word for manifestation. And we use
the tunneling that Jahn and Dunne speak of to establish relations between
consciousness that would other wise be solipsistic. We note that the combined
consciousnesses have their own qualities just like the difference in qualities
between two hydrogen atoms and a helium atom. The two hydrogen atoms may
experience quantum tunneling when in proximity. But when there is actual
synthesis of elements we get a different quality thing, for instance the helium which
is produced by the fusion of helium atoms in the sun. The helium atoms have their
own properties and continue to fuse as long as the heat is high enough to higher and
higher atoms on the atomic scale each with their particular qualities. No one has
ever known where those quality differences arise from. But it is the differences in
qualities between different kinds of atoms that is the basis for variety in our world.
So it is that social consciousness is not just monads that quantum tunnel into each
1217
other but there are different qualities of social consciousness that arise when
different people are together under pressure which do not arise otherwise.
Now since the overlapping quantal models of consciousness which form a social
consciousness are manifestation itself we can apply the relations of sameness/
difference and static/dynamic to the interpenetrated ellipses of consciousness. So
social consciousness has the aspects of homeodynamics, homeostasis,
heterdynamics and heterostasis as the different consciousnesses interact. There is
the quantal interaction that gives us the N^2 relations between people and there are
the qualitative relations that give us 2^N qualities of the system that appear when
the quantal models of consciousness overlap and form higher elements of social
consciousness. As we have seen these different qualities can be related to any of
Goodman's type of worldmaking and can be combined in the way Husserl and
Johannson suggest to create combinations of sliceable and non-sliceable qualities or
extensible and non-extensible qualities. The combinations of the sliceable and non-
sliceable create temporal gestalts according to Johannson and the combination of
two temporal gestalts create temporal gestalts sui generis. We posit that temporal
gestalts are models of dissipation and that temporal gestalts causa sui are
autopoietic so there are further combinations of pairs of temporal gestalts causa sui
that must be reflexive. Thus the qualities of the world combine in ultra-efficient
ways to produce the things that are broken up and recognized as quanta within
consciousness.
Now what we notice when we realize that social consciousness in nothing other
than manifestation to the intersubjective cohort (as individual consciousness is the
manifestation to the individual which must be derivative because all individuals
arise from the social cohort) is that the kinds of Being describe this social
manifestation. So we can see that the ellipse of consciousness is a synergy of the
kinds of Being in every instance and that is what makes these ontological concepts
relevant for understanding the nature of consciousness. For the individual we
discover the different kinds of being slowly and through the philosophical
exploration of the world but these ontological concepts are always working on the
social level which is the level where emergences appear. Pure presence is the
illusory continuity through which we communicate in language and through our
senses. Process Being is the underlying temporality of the different agents in the
matrix of spacetime/timespace. That matrix as we have seen is also structured on
the octonion breaking up into the quaternion of x+y+z-t and the other quaternion of
past-present-future+nowhere. Hyper Being is the discontinuities that exist between
1218
the monads in the intersubjective cohorts and their experiences. Because of these
discontinuities we wonder whether if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear
will it make a sound. Berkeley says yes because God is there to hear it. The answer
of phenomenology is no. There is no tree that is not phenomenalized to someone.
And this is why we have an essential relation to the noumena within in
manifestation because that allows us to construct a world that does not have such
gaps through the quaternionic interplay of truth, reality and identity. Wild Being is
the socius itself as the social field that negates the individuals and merely is
composed of tendencies of desiring machines. The social is written directly on the
face of the void. Wild Being is partially immersed within the void. It shades into
formlessness.
Onar Aam (onar@hsr.no) presents the following analysis of the kinds of Being:
<Begin Quote>
Rotating in and out of existence (Nowhere) has a very

particular structure it seems. Process being can be seen as the
following:
past [present] future
That is, the present is always in the process of showing itself

(future rotating into present) and always in the process of
hiding itself (present rotating into past). But by crossing out
either future or past we obtain rotation in and out of nowhere,
i.e. hyper being! Watch this:
past [present] -future- (crossed out)
If we cross out the future of a process then we get

disappearance into nowhere. In other words, the process comes to
a point where it has no future. This may be seen as a string of
falling dominos where the fallen dominos are the past and the
standing dominos are the future and the falling dominoes are the
present.
fallen [falling] standing
If there are no more standing dominos left than the present

(falling) will disappear into nowhere. Similarly, something may
discontinuously come into existence. This is -past- crossed out:
1219
-past- [present] future
The process then has no past, it rotates into the world from
nowhere. In other words, I think hyper being may be seen as
-past- OR -future-. Similarly I think -past- AND -future- may be
seen as pure presence:
-past- [present] -future-
The purely present has no past and no future, it is *timeless*

(frozen in time). Process being is past, present and future.
(nothing crossed out). If we're really lucky then this can be
stated in terms of the quaternion as you suggested:
i -1 j k
----------------------------------------------------------------
past [present] future -nowhere-Process being
-past- [present] future nowhereHyper being (emergence)
past [present] -future- nowhereHyper being

(annihilation)
-past- [present] -future- -nowhere-Pure presence
(singularity)
past -present- future nowhereWild being (phase space)
Let me explain the notation here. ij = k reads: "together i and

j hides k" and k = ij reads "when k is hidden i and j are
present". Another notation to indicate this hiding relation would
be:
i j = k
ij is "on top" of k and therefore hides it.
Process Being (ij=k): past and future hides Nothing

---------------------------------------------------
In process being we realize that both past and future must be
present(!) This is being-in-the-world. We have illusory
continuity and the discontinuity of hyper being is always already
hidden.
Hyper being (jk=i): future and Nothing hides past

-------------------------------------------------
This is the emergence side of hyper being, i.e. the rotation of
something into existence from nothing. The emergence has no past.
1220
It comes from nowhere, but it has a future.
Hyper being (ki=j): Nothing and past hides future

-------------------------------------------------
This is the annihilation side of hyper being, i.e. the rotation
of something out of existence into nothing. The annihilated has
no future. It turns into nothing, but still has a past.
In hyper being we catch a glimpse of the always already hidden.

When something discontinuously rotates in or out of existence we
see that it comes from Nowhere. So at this flash in time we can
actually see that nowhere actually exists.
Pure presence (-1=i^2=j^2=k^2):singularity

-------------------------------------------
The purely present hides nothing and it has no future and no
past.
Wild Being (ijk=-1): phase space

-------------------------------
In phase space we hide the present, by only showing the
differences *between* the moments, not the actual moments
themselves. When we show the entire past and future we also see
the nowhere (strange attractor) which orders the chaotic
phenomenon.
<End Quote>
18. Emergent Systems
Goertzel's Magicians are just an example of a self-generating system. And as I read

about component systems and magicians I realized that there is something crucial
missing. I want to call this crucial missing concept "emergent systems". Goertzel's
concept of what is emergent is I think flawed. Component systems are like LEGOs
that form a molecular soup and put themselves together. Goertzel brilliantly shows
how they are stochastically computable. But his self generating systems create each
other out of nothing. He holds this up as a kind of creativity where things create
each other using raw possibilities and selecting down. He is a lot more
mathematically precise about this in the real book.
But what is missing is where a self generating system creates something genuinely
new. Not calling or creating something that has already been named but giving a
new name and giving it new properties. Notice that Gelertner says that a
1221
programming language is a naming space. We create names and then give those
names properties when we program. But magicians do not do this. They call into
existence whole things that already exist. And this is true of component systems
too. We start with certain components that are basic and it is their combinations that
give us something new.
So what is missing is something that creates a new kind and a new individual of
that kind and then gives it new properties such that the individual is a First that is its
newness is orthogonal to everything that already exists. I do not believe that
creativity is rules plus randomness as Goertzel says.
So an emergent rewite rule should say something like this:
This statement, called MakeNew, takes an indefinite number of magicians that

exist as a context along with their hyper-relations and creates a new magician, X, of
new kind Y with new hyper-relations H to the selected context and with new
properties P.
True emergence is a synthesis not just a combination of random events and rules.
What this says is that an emergent system is partially between self-generating and
other generating. Its otherness is its newness contrasted with what is old. Its self
generating aspect is its entry into the context of what already exists. The new thing
is a synthesis of the different kinds of Being when it comes into existence.
Magicians theory combines the different kinds of Being but perhaps does not
synthesize them. Emergent systems provide new syntheses (jewels).
Now that I have realized this flaw in Goertzel's reasoning about what is new (He
clearly did not read Mead and get his message) I think I am in a better position to
define emergent systems. You see self-generating systems describe the meta-
systems (goertzel at one place talks about hyper systems (?????). But emergent
systems provide a synthesis.
So when a new individual of a new kind is created we have (N+1)^2 - N^2 new
relations and 2^N+1 - 2^N new interpenetratings. The number of interpenetrations
tell us how many qualities a system has. The original N is the number of things in
the old context. So this figure tells us how much the context has expanded with the
introduction of the new thing.
1222
Let's take a crazy tact. Let us calculate the new qualities and then internalize them
in the new thing as its new coherence. If we do that then we can say that the new
thing is the integra of the new qualities that it calls into existence and so we have a
way abstractly of creating new kinds and relating them to a new individual. See my
book and the trigrams of Being for the concept of the Integra. It is the uniqueness of
the individual instead of its essence. It is the specific combination of Chi and Li.
Notice this. The Laws of Form/Pattern give us

Figure 277:
something
nothing
multiplicity
leveling
Hypersets give us a peculiar relation between multiplicity and leveling that accepts
paradox (para-consistency). There is nothing in here about relations and we cannot
construct hyper-relations without adding something to the model. But notice that
the leveling and multiplicity of nothing can be seen as projecting higher logical
types and ramified types at each metalevel. Multiplicity and leveling of things give
us the hierarchies of sets or if we consider them rhizomatic then we have a hyperset
with hyper-relations. But we must add in the relations. Also even though hypersets
can be members of themselves this model does not cover the interpenetratings of
the somethings and the nothings. Do interpenetrated nothings give different
qualities. Certainly interpenetrated somethings of different kinds give different
qualities. Also kindness is missing from this model.
Figure 278:
something
nothing
multiplicity
levels
sets and relations N^2
hypersets and hyper-relations
interpenetrations 2^n
Now this extends the model of the fourfold.
It allows the things in the fourfold to be holographic.
It allows things in the fourfold to have relations and participate in sets.
1223
It allows things in the fourfold to have qualities.
Now a new thing is a particular synthesis of qualities that come from its
orthogonality of the other things in the context set.
Igvar Johannson tells us how this works in Ontological Investigations. He basically

says that there are qualities that change when we expand things and qualities that
change when we slice things. Goodman in Ways Of Worldmaking gives other
examples. Husserl liked to expand things and Johannson likes to slice things.
Johannson says that something you can slice together with something you cannot
slice gives you what he calls a Temporal Gestalt. When you combine two temporal
gestalts you get a Temporal Gestalt causa sui. That is something that has autopoietic
like qualities. Probably if you combine two Temporal Gestalts Causa Sui you get
something reflective. (This is a speculation.)
So the 2^N+1 gives the analytic addition of qualities that are orthogonal from the
interpenetrating. But these qualities themselves have the nature of being Sliceable,
Expandable, and the other Ways of worldmaking so that combinations of opposite
qualities give conjunctive results.
Perhaps we can randomly assign the different kinds of qualities from the ways of
world making in order to make the qualities abstractly describable without knowing
what the qualities actually are. No one knows how the difference between a
hydrogen and helium atom comes into existence let alone all the others and the
myriad qualities that come form molecular combinations. But we only need to
create abstractly new kinds in order to have a new kind of a new existent individual.
Once the new kinds exist as dimensions then we can randomly assign features of a
particular individual.
Anyway this is a beginning for thinking through how a new individual of a new
kind might be described in an emergent system.
19. The minimal system in consciousness
When we look at consciousness and note that it contains the two foci we can begin
to characterize those foci. One hides symmetries and the other hides the
differentiation of the imaginaries. We can characterize the symmetries that lie
below the asymmetrical field of consciousness as global sameness dominating local
1224
difference. The local differences are the operations on the symmetrical object that
remains the same before and after the operation. We can characterize the
differentiation of the imaginaries as global difference dominating local sameness.
This is because the imaginaries are different only in conjunction. When the
conjunction vanishes so does the difference yielding sameness. So we have just
characterized the two foci in terms of the sameness/difference dichotomy which is
one of the dichotomies we used to differentiate the kind of Being.
When we look at the other dichotomy of Stasis and Dynamics we can see that
Stasis can be seen to dominate dynamics in the Grammar of language. Grammar is
more or less static compared to speech. We cannot talk without grammar as the
basis for what we say. On the other hand Dynamics dominates stasis in the
phenomena of standing waves. Dynamics is the interference of the waves which
cancel out to give us standing waves in some special conditions.
We can also associate the standing waves and their cancellation with the
symmetries, but in this case the symmetries are manifest not hidden. Similarly we
can associate he stasis of grammar with speech that arises in consciousness between
individuals and in social consciousness as language languaging (what Heidegger
calls rede or talk). Speech is our way of bridging between time streams of different
individual agents within the intersubjective cohort.
We can readily see that these different manifestations of same/difference or stasis/

dynamics can be associated with the representations of the minimal system.
Figure 279:
Dynamic over static: Interference and standing waves = knot
Sameness over Difference: Symmetries underlying consciousness = tetrahedron has symmetries
Difference over Sameness: Differentiation of imaginaries = mobius strip because imaginaries are
globally the same via algebra but locally different time streams.
Static over Dynamic: Grammar over speech = torus where a circle provides the circling of
another circle.
So these are the four manifestations of the minimal system each with the 720
degrees angular momentum of the spinnor which isolates a point in spacetime. You
have to be moving to stand still in spacetime. Each of these manifestations of the
1225
minimal system appears within consciousness in a specific way. The standing

waves like in the Schrodinger equation give the probabalistic differentiation of the
quanatal consciousness at different energy levels. Schrodinger's equation shows us
all the different standing wave patterns on a planet wide ocean. So quantal
consciousness would be differentiated according to the standing wave energy
patterns. It would hide below the surface the symmetries of the unconscious as the
field of consciousness is made up of asymmetries of perception and cognition, or
memory and recognition (?). It is made up of languaging that is based on grammar.
The voices of that languaging appear from nowhere which is out of the singularity.
The singularity differentiates itself into different timestreams held together by the
special systems.
Within consciousness all four representations of the minimal system work together
to provide the statics and dynamics or sameness or differences within the
integration of the kinds of Being which are the permutations of these same stases
and dynamics or sameness or differences. This is a unification of the representations
of the minimal system and the world as seen in terms of the meta-levels of Being.
This unification occurs through the quantal elliptical model of consciousness that
forms the interface between the minimal system and the world.
20. Matrix Logic and the Social
Now we integrate the picture of the quaternion of truth, identity and reality with the
concept of the minimal system in the world. Each minimal system within
consciousness or manifestation is associated with a noumnena. We know this
because of Henry's work on the Essence of Manifestation. So we say the following:
The minimal system within consciousness contains a noumena. That noumena is

defined in terms of the quaternion of truth reality and identity. We will use Matrix
logic to not only define the truth dimension but also the identity and reality
dimensions of the minimal system. Thus there are three truth vectors associated
with each manifest minimal system along each of the dimensions of Being (truth,
reality, and identity dimensions). Each of these truth vectors has two elements and
can appear in bra or ket format. Each one sports four meta-truth values that
encompass all the aspects of showing and hiding (1, 0, -1, i). We have already
shown that the imaginary value allows us to apply the structure of the Greimas
square to the Matrix Logic. But now we note that each vector associated with truth,
reality or identity has an imaginary extension value. These we posit form a
1226
quaternion. Now we have a quaternion of dimensions described by the trigrams of

Being within which there is a minimal system that has within it a quaternion of
meta-imaginary truth values for each of its identity, reality and truth vectors.
Now we see that there is a space of truth reality and identity dimensions. They
contain the minimal system which relates to its own noumena via the matrix logic
along each dimension. It has four showing and hiding truth values one of which is
imaginary along each dimension and the four together create a quaternion at the
heart of the minimal system. So this is how every thing in the universe has a
noumena that is a quanternion at its heart. At some level of the Pascal's triangle
there is a non-division (non-divisible) system in the progression past octonions that
has enough quaternions to model all the things that are part of the interpenetrating
Indra's net.
We note that the minimal system is seen in the world via its four representations.
But inwardly it is mirrored and forms an octonion that has a community of
quaternions that are the reflections of the original quaternion. So the consciousness
of each minimal system is inherently social. Outwardly the individual takes part in
the field of the socius in which his inward quaternion enters into symbiotic relations
with those of others. So the ultra-effiency of consciousness is balanced outwardly
by the ultra-efficiency of love. And we see that the very dimensions of the space
that the minimal system appears within are quaternionic. So the minimal system
appears within the matrix of spacetime/timespace and the that outward quaternion
participates with the quaternion of the different kinds of Being to produce a matrix
that includes both manifestation and the noumena as a single octononic system
adrift within the ocean of interpenetration.
[END OF WORKING PAPER ON 951012]
21. Magician Construction
Now we are in a better position to understand the structure of magicians. We find

that they do not exist like minimal systems in spacetime but in the "quasi-space" or
the permutation of truth, reality and identity that we see in the trigrams of Being.
This quasi-space also forms an octonion as the three dimensions of the space are
quaternionic and the interior of the noumena is quaternionic. So that the
combination of the two is an octonion. So this allows us to realize why it is that the
magicians are the dual of General Systems Theory as posited in our paper Software
Engineering Design Methods And General Systems Theory (impress IJGS). What
1227
we see is that Spacetime/Timespace form a Matrix that is octonionic. And the

inward and outward of the minimal system exists in a "quasi-space" of the identity,
truth and reality that appears within Being which also forms an Octionion. These
two octonions form a sedenion (16nion). The Sedenion encompasses both the
manifestation of the thing in terms of identity, truth and identity and in terms of its
embedding in the Matrix. The Sedenion is the form of the Minimal system and
exhibits pure complementarity of the kind Plotnitsky talks about. The Sedenion is
the first level of non-division algebras that extend infinitely down through all the
layers of Pascal's triangle. These infinite levels of the mirroring of interpenetration.
So now that we know that magicians as meta-systemic embodiments do not exist

within spacetime but it is only there systemic embodiments that exist in spacetime it
is easier for us to understand how to build magician Artificial Intersubjectivity
systems. Up till now we imagined magician meta-systems as being in spacetime.
But now we realize that they exist in the nether world of the identity, truth and
identity "quasi-space." This is the space we have been calling the Akkashic record.
So it is the potential space for the embodied magicians. Now we understand that
embodies magicians die out in a spacetime interval but like instantations flip over
into the akkashic record and move through that "quasi-potential space" to then pop
back out into space time again. So what we were calling meta-system magicians
before that died when their moment was over are really those that move through a
channel in the akkashic record "quasi-potential-space" and pop into and out of the
Matrix seemingly inexplicably. Now we know that that "quasi-potential-space" is
the space of identity, truth and reality which is within manifestation and functions
as the connections between the manifest and the unmanifest (always already lost)
noumena. These were call the seeds in the tatagata gharba. But the seeds themselves
have a life of a magician within the akkashic "quasi-potential-space." So we can say
that the difference between magician meta-systems and systems is that the meta-
systems have a dual life inside and outside the akkashic record space whereas
magician systems only exist in the Matrix of spacetime and do not go in and out of
the potential space. So this implies that magician systems are like solitons and
magician meta-systems are like instantatons.
Each magician has its vector pinpointing it in the Matrix and another vector
pinpointing it in the quasi-potential-space of manifestation. Each magician has its
truth, reality, and identity vectors that work according to Matrix Logic except they
have the extension of a proto-imaginary additional "truth" value which between the
vectors forms a quaternion. In addition each magician may have other force vectors
1228
depending on its actions. And each magician may have a number of attributes and
relations or hyper relations as well as interpenetrations with other magicians. Each
magician has its anti-magician and within the akkashic space there is a constant
creation of magicians and their opposites. In the akkashic quasi-potential-space the
magicians have the opposite problem they have in real spacetime. In the quasi-
potential-space there is a continual creation and destruction of magicians and the
REAL ones are those slated to exist in the next moment in the MATRIX. So instead
of nominating potential magicians and voting which ones are real, the problem is to
preserve the seed magicians that are actual within the sea of virtual magicians. So
conservation is the problem not destruction. Seeds drop into the potential space and
then become magicians within that space. They must be preserved in spite of the
fact that there are myriads of magicians being created and destroyed at every
moment. Notice here we have the opposite problem than we had in the Matrix. We
must still assume discontinuity and get conservation by collusion. But we need to
specify a mechanism by which that might happen. One thing we know is that the
seeded magicians are odd with respect to the continual creation and destruction of
pairs of magicians. Thus even if one of them is destroyed in annihilation another
one like it will be preserved. So it is oddness that preserves in the akkashic space
and in the potential nomination space. Thus we can see that the akkashic space and
the nomination space are intimately related.
It has already been explained how propensities turn potentialities into probabilities
upon which we project determinate causal relations. Now we see that it is not just
the kinds of Being that define how this transformation takes place because this does
not take into account the noumena. If we use the trigrams of Being to consider the
relations to the noumena then we get a double pronged attack on the transformation.
And this makes all the difference when we realize that the nomination space is
related to the akkashic record space. These are spaces of potential. The MATRIX is
the space of actualization. There is a transformation that takes place that allows
magicians to become actualized through both of these quasi-potential-spaces. The
actualizations are opposite each other in the sense that in one case the magician is
inside the MATRIX and must go through the nomination and annihilation voting
process. In the other case the actualization is the reappearance out of the quasi-
potential akkasic space after that space has been seeded by the magician
disappearing into it like an instantaton. In one case nominations are projected as
potentials and then annihilation occurs in potential space and then those candidates
that survive become seeded into the akkashic record. In the other case the individual
magicians that are seeded in the akkasic record space are odd within the sea of
1229
continuous annihilation and destruction of magician and anti-magician virtual pairs.

That oddness allows them to survive, or if they are annihilated some widowed
singleton of a pair stands in for the seeded magician. So that at the end of the
potential period the individuals that are conserved pop out the other end to become
actualized magicians within the Matrix again. Conservation in both the nomination
and voting process and in the quasi-potential-space is based on oddness. But this
preservation may be disturbed by disruptions in either space. In the nomination
space the social group may randomly add and subtract magicians in order to sway
the balance. And there may also be distortions in the quasi-potential- akkashic-
space that would cause different magicians to appear from the proto-gestalt than
were seeded into it. We know these distortions exist because they come out of the
nature of the octonion. The proto-gestalt may be creative and produce completely
new magicians. We might not just nominate magicians from a menu of those that
already exist but may nominate new ones of different kinds from those that have
existed before. So what this tends toward is the definition of emergent systems.
Emergent systems are more than self-generating but are quasi-other generating.
That is to say it generates orthogonally new kinds that either come from outside (the
proto-gestalt) or the inside (designed new things). These emergent systems go
beyond what appears in the magician systems to provide some insight into the
arising of the radically new out of the meta-systemic global economy. These
radically new things can be recognized because they go through each of the stages
of manifestation by participating in each meta-level of Being. As G.H. Mead has
pointed out already. The emergent is the highest definition of the social.
Emergent systems appear when we apply Greimas square to the relation between
self and other in order to find the truly monstrous which is both self and other. The
emergent is orthogonal to every other existent thing but still is in the realm of
possibilities defined by other existent things. So we see it comes out of the space of
possibilities. It is in fact a point in the space of possibilities defined by multiple
constraints of what exists that has been left open but has not been occupied before
that is discovered and occupied. So emergences are not radical departures from the
realm of possibilities but instead are discoveries of niches in the real of possibilities
that have not been seen before. Emergences look like otherness but since they are
only occupations of these niches that were always there that we were unaware of
before they are still part of our own most possibilities and thus part of our self. So
the key point about emergences is that they appear to be utterly other but they are
secretly part of out own most possibilities. That is why we can recognize them. If
they were utterly other we could not recognize them. Now we see why the realm of
1230
possibility is so important. It allows our worlds to expand. And after they expand
then they contract because we encompass the emergent things and make it part of
our world. This process of expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction of our
being-in-the-world underwritten by Hyper Being and Wild Being is what allows us
to accept emergences and make them part of our world. They are fundamental
alterations in our human essence which has as its own most possibility the
projection of the world.
22. Artificial Intersubjective Simulation
Once we know that what needs to be simulated are two intertwined realms -- the
MATRIX and the MANIFESTATION of the Noumena via truth, reality, and
identity -- then it becomes much clearer what the simulation of an Artificial
Intersubjectivity must be like. We must realize that the MATRIX is not all that
exists. But within the SEDENION there is another octonion of manifestation which
includes the possibility of the noemena. That other octonion relates to the inside and
outside of each minimal system. Inside there is a quaternion of imaginaries from the
truth, reality, and identity vectors. Outside there is the quaternion of the truth,
reality and identity dimensions. These two fuse into an octionion that surrounds the
minimal system from the inside and the outside. Distortions may appear inwardly or
outwardly just as predicted by Freud and other psychoanalysts. These are the
distortions of manifestation by the non-manifest predicted from a philosophical
point of view by Derrida who called it differAnce of differing and deferring. The
distortions appear in the (hyper-)relations between the inward and outward. Out of
those distortions the utterly new can arise as an emergent eventity. This distortion
of the inward and outward forms an octionion that is balanced by the octionion of
the MATRIX. This creates distortions between views of events in spacetime or
timespace by observers in different inertial frames. Those distortions can be
displacements of the reversibility between space and time or as discontinuities.
Together there are four different sources of distortion as each quaternionic
component relates to the octonions and these in turn relate to the sedenion within in
which they are embedded.
23. The best of all possible worlds.
An analysis has been done of the minimal design methods and the ultra-efficiencies
within that field has been found. There are four dissipative methods which combine
into six virtual autopoietic formations and fifteen virtual reflexive systems. When
these were analyzed three stuck out as being ultra-efficient. Now it has been found
1231
by Onar Aam that there are fifteen octonions within the sedenion. That being the
case there is the possibility that three of the octonions within the sedenion have
some special properties that are ultra-efficient. If this turns out to be the case then it
will be true that there is such a thing as the best of all possible worlds and Voltaire's
character Candide will have been vindicated and an Elderodo such as that Onar
Aam describes will be said to exist, just not in this world defined by the Western
worldview. It makes sense that if there are ultra-efficiencies nested within the world
like solitons or superconductivity then perhaps some worlds might themselves be
ultra-efficient. We postulate that it is these ultra-efficient worlds that allow the
pluriverse to cohere. If as we have said there is a constant cancellation of possible
worlds into the socially designated as real world then this cancellation probably
occurs around the ultra-efficient worlds. We can think of these ultra-efficient
worlds as those without any essence of manifestation -- where all manifestation is
apparent and there is nothing hidden. This is hard for us to imagine. But it means
that the ultra-effiency of consciousness and the ultra-effiency of the social world
would merge. This is the ideal of the Hindu sat-chit-ananda. In these worlds there is
pure holoid with no ephemeron. We find them spoken about as the golden age at the
time of Kronos. These myths may have some basis in the fact that ultra-effiencies
exist in the world and not only that but can encompass worlds themselves. How we
gain access to the utra-effiecient worlds or the ultra-effiencies within worlds is
another matter. That is a question that needs further exploration.
One way to think about this is to notice that Being is about presencing and that the
opposite of always oppressively presented is never ever presented. Thus we might
defind "existence" as what is not oppressively presented nor always hidden. As such
"existence" would strike a perfect balance between the presentation and hiddenness
that could be the characterization of the ultra-efficient worlds. These worlds do not
have Being as defined by the nihilistic opposites that revolve around the different
kinds of Being
Figure 280:
Pure Presence -- Oppressively Manifest verses Noumena that is always hidden.
Process Being -- Dynamic as opposed to the stasis of pure presence.
Hyper Being -- Discontinuous as opposed to the continuity of process and illusory continuity
of pure presence. The essence of Manifestation that is never present arises here behind
the discontinuities and is seen in the distortion of what is manifest.
Wild Being -- Mixed as opposed to a plenum of unmixed elements of static or dynamic,
continuous or discontinuous.
Being is all about presentation in all its forms. What is never manifest is is merely
1232
the nihilistic opposite of presentation. Existence can be defined as that which is not
presented nor hidden. Existence would achieve ultra-effieiency by the very fact it
does not alternate between over manifest or over hidden. We posit that the three
worlds that are ultra-effieient have existence that is not nihilistic. We posit that
these three worlds have a quaternionic relations between each other. By that they
mediate each other's non-well-foundedness and define a singularity that is beyond
all worlds. That singularity is the single cause beyond the void.
24. The articulation of ultra-efficient consciousness.
We have defined five levels of algebra related to systems theory and given them
analogies to different kinds of systems. We have claimed that the real algebra is
related to the system as gestalt and that the sedenion algebra is related to the meta-
system as proto-gestalt. And we have identified three special systems that mediate
perfectly between these called the dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive systems
that are analgous to the complexnion, quaternion, and octonion. We have claimed
that these three hinge algebras give us a general model of ultra-efficient systems.
And we understand that the solition is a phenomena at the dissipative special system
level, super-conductivity is a phenomena at the autopoietic special system level,
and the ultra-effieiency in the design methods of software engineering is at the
reflexive speical system level. We have also stated that besides the ultra-effieient
systems there is a possiblity that there are possibly three ultra-effieient worlds
among the fifteen virtual worlds at the sedenion level. And we have also stated that
consciousness itself is ultra-efficient and that love is the social ultra-efficiency.
But it remains for us to see how consciousness could be structured by ultra-

efficiencies. And we propose the following structuring of the senses as the primary
means by which this occurs.
Figure 281:
Present-at-Hand |
Ready To Hand | Kinds of Being
In Hand | Substrate to Presentation
Out of Hand | Ideational Mechanism
Hands Touching SEDENION BASE
Chin Touched EARTH |

|
Mouth Taste REAL WATER |
|
Nose Smell COMPLEXNION AIR | Presented
1233
| Face
|
Eyes Sight QUATERNION FIRE |
|
Ears Hearing OCTONION ETHER |
Notice the structure of human finitude that we are positing here.
We start with the Mouth and Nose which form a single system. Food/Water and
Air chiasmicly cross in the adual but remain separate passage ways in the baby.
Smell influences taste and Taste influences smell intimately. And the cavity of the
mouth and nose along with the tongue are the basis for the production of speech and
thus the logocentric view of existence is rooted here in this pair of senses. The
duality of the smell and taste reminds us of the single algebra that connects the two
timestreams of the reals and complex numbers. And we understand that the
continuity of air and the continuity of food are necessary for the organism to
function on its most basic level. And the continuity of speech also issues from this
cavity. There is in fact a segmentation between food intake, air intake and speech as
they are all using the same part of our body to establish themselves. So there is a
kind of a queing problem associated with the support of all these continuities via
chiasmicly single channel. The breaks in these three competing continuities show us
how creation and annihilation magician operators can interplay at this level to
produce discontinuities.
When we move to sight we have opened another channel in Huntun (the chinese
primordial holoidal form) for the experience of the world. Sight is completely
different from the senses of taste and smell. It introduces distance and observers
differences of kinds through light. We associate this with the quaternionic algebraic
level. Most of the analogies of this level have to do with the reflectivity of light in
mirrors. At this level we see behavior. Behavior arises from the non-commutative
property of the quaternion alternating algebra. With vision we can focus our two
eyes on a figure within a gestalt to perceive the behavior of one dynamic system
within the environment. Then we focus on another and so we attempt to understand
our environment serially. Here too there is a chiasm that underlies the distribution
of visual stimuli to the two halves of brain.
When we move to hearing the major difference is that we can hear the blending of
simultaneous sounds. Thus we can understand parallel distiributed resonating
1234
behavior of multiple individuals at this naturally social level of manifestation. The

sounds cause us to turn our vision to the different places where we are alerted by
sounds of their relevancy. Most of the analogies at the octonion level are auditory.
At this level non-associativeness allows us to listen to the interweaving of multiple
sounds without concentrating on a single figure at a time as Vision would have us
do. Instead we can mimic auditory depth with sterio or disociated sources.
Beyond or underlying all this presentation in the face that corresponds to the
differnt algebraic levels there is the touch within the hands. This corresponds to the
sedenion that gives the embodied sensory background for all this presentation of the
face. We note that the kinds of Being refer to handedness. Thus the kinds of Being
are the substrate or mechanism underlying the presentation of the face and its
continuities. Touch relates to heterogensous textures which can be felt seprately by
hands and feet. Thus the touch mirrors the discontinuity of the field of the senses
represented by the sedenion very well. If we touch the face we usually would touch
the chin. The chin is the place that is touched on the face and represents the Earth.
The Earth, Water, Air and Fire pattern is also mirrored in the parts of the body. So
the hands interface with the face through the chin establishing a link between the
handedness or technology underlying the presentation of the face. The hand can
also touch most of the body. But there are some parts of the body that are very
difficult to touch. Thus there is a natural hiddenness to the body which we accetuate
by covering ourselves with clothes. But we tend not to cover the face which we
present uncovered on the background of our covered bodies. If our bodies are
mostly uncovered we still tend to cover our private parts which represent the
hiddenness that is the dual of the presentation of the face. The hands and body
generate the behavior that is sensed by our selves and others but also it controls
what the senses can perceive. Our bodies together form the body politic and
together we project the world as autonomous parallel distributed organisms. The
higher senses encompass the scene of mutual action and mutual communication of
the embodied social organism that inhabits many bodies that belong together.
So by this analogy we can see how our perceptual structure is similar to that we
find in the algebras and we see how the sedenions serve as the context for the
alternating algebras of presentation that are linear while the sedenion has lost its
linearity. Touch and embodiement forms the technological substrate that underlies
presentation and gives us a reversiblity between perception and behavior and their
shadows immagination and mimicry. This unifies our concept of the algebras in a
very concrete way because it ties them to something we know very well which is
1235
the human perceptual articulation of consciousness.
1236

PART 6: Emergent Meta-Systems

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. Preliminary Sketch
This essay will attempt to describe Emergent Meta-systems in a semi-formal way

in order to pave the way for building Artificial Intersubjective (A-IS) Simulations
of this new kind of entity. The departure for this enterprise comes from the work of
Ben Goertzel who defined Self-Generating Systems (SGS) as opposed to the
Component Systems (CS) that were defined by Kampis. Goertzel defined SGS in
his book Chaotic Logic where he reviewed Component Systems and showed the
difference between those and Self-Generating Systems. A subsequent study of SGS
and CS has led the author to propose a further formalism based on SGS called
Emergent Meta-Systems (EMS).
Goertzel also proposed, we think for the first time the concept of creating Artificial
Intersubjective Simulations complementary to Artificial Intelligent and Artificial
Life simulations that have become so important recently. It is a natural extension of
these to begin to consider the social ramifications of Artificial Intelligent and
Living Systems. This realm has already been opened up by Distributed Artificial
Intelligence. But there the emphasis is on the cooperation of independent artificial
intelligent agents. Rather artificial intersubjective simulations focus on the social
foundations of the Society of Mind from a cognitive point of view and of the social
relations between autonomous beings from the viewpoint of Computational
Sociology. In this we hope to continue the advances that have begun to be made by
1238
Hubermann in Computational Physics and of Kauffman in this studies of

Computational Theoretical Biology. Each of these disciplines have turned their
attention and efforts to understanding human organizations from the point of view
of complex systems analysis. What we would like to see is the creation of a
discipline which begins from sociological principles that recognize the sui generis
nature of the social but that applies computational techniques to the exploration of
complex social organizations. Through computer simulations we can explore
complex sociological systems starting from sociological first principles. It turns out
that the development of such approaches is of interest not just to sociologists but
also to other disciplines. For instance, those that study artificial life realize that the
artificial organisms must interact in an artificial ecology with each other to produce
artificial societies. Those that study artificial intelligence also are interested in how
distributed artificial intelligent agents will cooperate to solve problems to complex
for any one agent to handle. Those studying cognitive psychology wish to
understand how distributed cognitive functions cooperate to create the Society of
Mind. In fact, this is how Goertzel who is a cognitive psychologist came to first to
propose artificial intersubjective simulations. However, we wish to found these
simulations on sociological principles that recognize that social organization has a
reality of its own that is not reduced to any other level of organization. In other
words we want to show that when agents of a special type are brought together
social relations appear as emergent properties and that in turn these emergent
properties give rise to the emergent properties that define the individuals within the
social sphere. Rather than creating individuals that are asocial and attempting to
combine them to create social relations, we want to see social relations emerging as
a sui generis phenomena and then we want to see the individuals constituted out of
this social primal soup rather than starting with a monodology.
This leads us to consider Self-Generating Systems proposed by Goertzel as the

special kind of agents out of which the social primal soup is constituted that in turn
lead to the advent of social individuals. We are turning up side down the
conventional wisdom that individuals come first that then create social contracts
between themselves. Instead we are following the lead of Merleau-Ponty who
recognized that there can be no individual without the prior existence of the social
relations of mother and child. When we look at individuals development we see that
each of us arise out of a web of pre-existing social relations that we do not as
children understand but take for granted. Without these pre-existing social relations
we cannot become individuated cognitively rational beings negotiating the social
landscape. Thus we see Social Phenomenology as the empirical basis
1239
Computational Sociology. A social phenomenology takes the problem of

intersubjectivity in phenomenology as its starting point rather than existential
individuals. In this we follow the lead of Statler who in EXISTENCE AND LOVE
shows that a social phenomenology is primal. What we want to do is find a
formalism that allows us to express the basic social fabric computationally and then
allow individuals to arise to interact within that social fabric. We support a basic
approach the like that found in the work of Coutu who posits that the basic structure
of the social fabric is a Tendency in Situation (TINSIT) rather than individuals.
An approach has been found to constructing the social field as a primal foundation
for our social simulations. That approach dovetails with Goertzel's positing of SGS
as a basic construct in interesting ways. First we posit that there is a complementary
relations between systems and meta-systems. We do not believe that it is possible to
subdivide systems into sub-systems and sub-sub-systems analytically. Instead, each
system has associated with it a meta-system which is a deconstructed system whose
parts float in a field of propensities toward each other. Those parts can in turn be
seen as systems that in turn are deconstructed into meta-systems at a different level
of abstraction. Thus the system and the meta-system are seen as ontological
emergent levels within out social phenomenology. There are a whole series of these
levels of coherence of which systems and meta-systems are only two. For instance
there are at least the following levels:
Figure 282:
Fragments*
Monads*
Structure Primitive Pattern
Form Object Shape
System Gestalt Explicit Order
Meta-System Proto-Gestalt Implicate Order
Domain
World
Universe Kosmos
Pluriverse
*Note: not explained here.
We note that Husserl's Phenomenology described only one of these coherent

ontological levels which was that of form. It was Gurvitch in THE FIELD OF
CONSCIOUSNESS who added the basic concept of the Gestalt as a way of viewing
things within consciousness. In the Social Phenomenology we posit that there is an
emergent hierarchy of such levels of coherence of which form and gestalt are only
1240
two. In this essay we will focus on the System and Meta-system levels. When you
move between the system and the meta-system level it is as if the system becomes
deconstructed into a field of parts upon the gestalt background rather than being a
figure on the gestalt background. When we move between the meta-system and the
system then we are constructing and designing a system so that it can be an synergy
of parts that is coherent.
In out attempt to understand the the meta-system level of coherence we take as our
example the operating system in relation to the applications that exist within its
milieu. The operating system should be recognized as a meta-system not a system.
It is in a way an inversion and generalization of the systems that it contains as
applications. Another more formal example is the Universal Turing Machine
(UTM) in relation to the Turing Machine (TM). A UTM is an operating system for
the expression of Turing Machines. Turing machines are encoded on tapes that are
read by the UTM and embodied just as an application is read into memory by the
operating system and given the resources it needs. Meta-systems have two basic
aspects. It can be seen as either origin and as an arena. As an origin it gives rise to
the systems that appear as parts that appear in its field. As an arena it supports the
communication and interaction of these parts. The systems in the arena cannot stand
alone. They are partial to the extent that they need the meta-system operating-
system in order to exist at all. The meta-system is also partial in that it does nothing
useful on its own. It has a lack which is exactly fitted to the kinds of systems that
inhabit it. The systems on the other hand have a surplus. Systems are wholes greater
than the sum of their parts. Meta-systems on the other hand are wholes less than the
sum of their parts. Meta-systems always have a lack that the parts of the system fit
into. Systems always have emergent properties that disappear when they fall apart
into meta-systemic fields. When we move back and forth between a system and a
meta-system the emergent properties appear and disappear. Thus when we look at
artificial cognitive and living systems simulations the key point seems to be to
engineer meta-systems that under special conditions produce the right global
emergent properties and become systems. This is the approach of Kauffman in The
Origin Of Order and At Home In The Universe. He wishes to produce auto-catalytic
systems that have holistic properties. To him Life is a global property that emerges
in complex molecular systems spontaneously. He calls this phenomena "order for
free" and says that it is just as important as Selection as the foundation of evolution.
Similarly Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) systems attempt to solve
problems that no one intelligent agent can solve by themselves by getting those
agents to cooperate. Thus the global solution of a hard problem is an emergent
1241
event that appears out of the cooperation of the different kinds of intelligent agents.
The key as in Cellular Automata is go get global properties from local interactions.
This in our terms means traveling from the Meta-system to the System. The idea is
to stack the deck so that the desired effect appears as if on its own accord.
We can however see that it is also possible to travel from the system to the meta-
system. In such a simulation we would build systems with global emergent
properties and take them apart watching those properties disappear. This is
currently called deconstructionism. And in fact this is the situation we are normally
faced with in the kinds of Software and Hardware systems that we build all the
time. We attempt to build systems with global properties but see them deteriorate
and fall apart so that the global properties disappear, as when we find bugs and
other problems that prevent the system from operating as expected. Therefore we
see that the novelty of the transition from meta-system that appears as a trend in
Academia is merely the obverse of the trend in system building that occurs in
Industry. We would not think of taking a constructivist approach in industry to
building systems. In other words no one would think of creating small agents and
hope that when we put them together they would give the global properties we
desire. Instead what we do is start with requirements for global properties and
attempt to build systems that fulfill those requirements. What this means is that our
Software and Hardware systems are very fragile. If any part goes wrong then the
global emergent properties disappear. This is very disconcerting. Thus we attempt
to address this problem by building in redundancies. But this takes us back toward
the ultimate redundancy where every agent which the system is build out of was
replaceable and where the global properties would appear given any population of
agents. Thus constructionism would give us the ultimate robust systems if we knew
how to grow populations of agents that would produce any desired emergent global
property. But as it is we do not know what emergent global properties any particular
agent type will produce. So we are stuck building fragile systems that are specially
constructed to display the required emergent properties.
The question is whether there is any other approach that will help us create robust
systems with desired emergent properties coded into the agents at the lowest
possible level? This is a very difficult question. But what we see from the above is
that using meta-systems and relating them to systems gives us a way to think about
Social simulations. The social field can be seen as a meta-system within which
partial systems appear. These partial systems can be constructed into individuals
who are like the systems with the desired emergent properties of interaction. For
1242
this approach to make sense we need to develop a social ontology similar to that of
Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-oedipus. In their social ontology they posits that the
individual is an illusion made up of desiring machines suspended in the field of the
socius. Desiring machines are what psychoanalysis calls partial objects made
popular by the objects relations school of psychoanalysis developed by Kline. The
individual is an illusion created by the interplay of desiring machines as they
interact within the field of the socius. The desiring machines appear as
orthogonalities out of the unconscious which is called "the body without organs."
We differ from Deleuze and Guttari in that we do not de-value the level of the
individual giving priority to the other levels but recognize that all three of these
levels have an important role and that together they make it possible for individuals
to appear as conjunctions of desiring machines within the meta-system of the field
of the socius. This means among other things that individuals may share desiring
machines and that various individual systems can be constructed by reusing the
parts that appear floating in the field of the meta-system. Individuals interpenetrate
thorough the reuse of the partial systems within the meta-system.
Once we have the idea that individuals as systems overlap sharing parts (desiring
machines) and are embedded in the social field then we can see it is possible to
move back and forth between system and meta-system views of the individuals
interacting within the meta-systemic field. In fact each of these levels co-exist. The
social field exists as the meta-systemtic field that connects the parts of the
individuals in a web of propensities (TINSITS). The individuals exist as sharing
parts and building them up into systems that are wholes greater than the sum of
those parts, i.e. exhibiting global emergent characteristics. And the parts appear as
desiring machines that have multiple uses to different individuals, that is to say they
are reusable due to their embedded synergetic capacity. And this is where be begin
to see where the Self-Generating Systems model developed by Goertzel comes in.
The SGS elements appear as an excellent candidate for building up a picture of the
desiring machine parts that make up the individual. This is because SGS makes the
opposite assumptions as Systems Theory. Systems Theory assumes that systems are
based on continuities. We define systems as gestalts. A gestalt is a dynamic
between figure and ground that lasts over time and is assumed to be continuous. For
systems theory the problem is to account for discontinities that disrupt the flow of
the dynamical systems. The best example of a structural formal system's theory is
the General Systems Problem Solver of George Klir as described in Architecture Of
Systems Problem Solving. Here Klir constructs a structural system (a micro-
formalism) that bridges the gaps in the unfolding dynamics of the structural system.
1243
This kind of sophisticated General Systems Theory (GST) can explain the
discontinuities within the unfolding of systems. However, though they can be fitted
to these discontinuities and can bridge them after the fact they can not generate
those discontinuous behaviors a priori. So GSTs assume continuities and can
explain discontinuities up to a certain degree. But what we need is the inverse of
GST which assumes discontinuities and makes continuities the characteristic that
needs to be explained. Goertzel's SGS is an example of such an inverse of the GST.
And by assuming discontinuities it makes an excellent rubric for constructing the
desiring machines that make up systemic individuals with emergent characteristics.
SGS is defined as a set of elements that mutually create each other. Component
Systems by Kampis are a series of Lego like elements that combine to create new
configurations which he claims are not computable. SGS goes beyond these by
making up a loose set of components that mutually create each other which
Goertzel claims is quantum computable. He claims that both component systems
and SGS are quantum computable and that can scale down to emulate turing
computability. Goertzel produces an example SGS called a Magician System in
which a swarm of components mutually create and destroy each other. Each
Magician has an anti-Magician as its counterpart and they annihilate each other.
The Magician Swarm goes thorough a lifecycle in which they mutually act on each
other and communicate creating patterns and then each decides which particular
components should exist in the next moment. Each magician nominates the
persistent magicians in a special potential space. The nomination of anti-Magicians
are a vote against a particular component continuing to exist. Then all the magicians
and anti-magicians that are nominated cancel with each other. Those that are left
actually make it into the next lifecycle phase to start the process over again. An
important feature if Magician systems is that persistence over time by any one
magician only occurs through the collusion with other magicians in the nomination
and voting process. Voting is done in this case though the annihilation of opposite
magicians. What this characteristic means is that sociality is an in-built
characteristics of magician systems. Also since magician systems reconstitute
themselves at each life cycle revolution they do not assume continuity but instead
the formalism assumes the discontinuous cycles of creation and destruction that
model a punctuated equilibrium kind of evolutionary model. Persistence and
continuity need to be explained by showing specific collusions between magicians
to keep some feature of the swarm in existence from one lifecycle revolution to the
next. This combination of assuming social characteristics in the Swarm of
magicians and the non-assumption of continuity makes magicians an excellent
1244
candidate for modeling desiring machines as segments of individual systems that

continually reform as a swarm to provide a substrate to the illusory continuity of
individuals within the social fabric. The social fabric is constituted by the collusion
of magician SGS components. The components themselves in their swarm can be
seen as modeling desiring machines. And the continuity of individual systems made
up of sets of components within the swarm must be continually explained on the
basis of the social interactions of the lower level components. Thus the individuals
arise as emergent global properties from lower level partial components embedded
within a social field.
Our next step is to go beyond the dialectic of systems and meta-systems to realize
that some very peculiar and strange special systems may exist that balance between
the characteristics of systems and meta-systems. As we have said systems are
wholes greater than the sum of their parts in which emergent properties appear.
Meta-systems are less than the sum of their parts contain a lack sculpted for the
inclusion of system parts in a field of propensities. But also there exists a third
possibility that arises in very specific and rare situations in which the whole is
exactly the sum of the parts. We wish to use the special systems to construct a
further type of SGS which we call emergent meta-systems (EMS). We note that
Goertzel's SGS formalism does not seem to allow for the emergence of a genuinely
new eventity (event/entity). An emergent eventity would be a new instance of a new
kind of individual that is orthogonal to the already existing possible components of
the swarm. Goertzel's formulation of SGS is dependent on an interpretation of
randomness that does not distinguish between a random pattern and a pattern whose
complexity of patterning is beyond our ability to recognize. Thus the SGS does not
seem to preclude the existence of Emergent eventities but his formalism lacks the
specific aspects necessary to include emergent events as a positively described part
of the system. Therefore we think it prudent to make the extension of SGS to
positively describe the possibility of emergent meta-systems.
Emergent Meta-systems take full advantage of the existence of a third way of

describing systems between the alternatives of systems and meta-systems.
Emergent Meta-Systems embody the special systems that appear in rare situations
but have special properties the most unusual of which is their ultra-efficiency. EMS
is an extension of SGS which is in turn an extension of Components Systems of
Kampis. We claim that EMS is also quantum computable as are SGS and CS but
that they are not turing computable. However, in order to understand the quantum
computability of EMS we will need to look at precisely what quantum
1245
computability means as it necessitates bringing other mathematical formalisms

representing propensity and possibilities together with probabilities in order to
create a more robust picture of quantum computability. This we will attempt later in
this essay. For now it is necessary to review the nature of the special systems in
order to get a better picture of Emergent Meta-systems.
Systems and Meta-systems together define a "design landscape" which is full of

wicked constraints that make the mapping from the meta-systemic parts into the
system very difficult. Many times there are constraints in this design landscape that
render difficult to achieve certain types of efficient solutions and make ultra-
efficient solutions impossible. Emergent eventities may be seen as revolutions in
which things that were hither to impossible, or merely un-thought of or unheard of
suddenly become possible in a new context. The arising of the emergent eventity
causes us to rewrite not only history but also the possible futures as G.H. Mead
points out in the Philosophy Of The Future. There Mead basically identifies the
Social with the ability to generate and respond to emergent eventities. We will look
upon the design landscapes spoken of just now in terms of the NK type models of
Kauffman which show us fitness landscapes. We will consider EMSs to be
coevolving swarms with mutual dynamic fitness landscapes. Emergent eventities
occur when the fitness landscapes mutate rather than evolve as some genuinely new
possibilities cause the maps to change radically. Artificial emergence is when new
things come into existence merely but the sudden combination of factors (genes)
that have not been combined before. Genuine emergence is where the actual
language of the genes are extended due to the appearance of new hither to
impossible or un-thought of possibilities changing the set of factors that can be
drawn on to create the combinatorial map. Each EMS component produces a fitness
function rating all possibilities. So for each point on the NK landscape there is a
series of fitnesses related to each component in the swarm. The whole swarm co-
evolves except by the rules of the SGS not by the rules of Component Systems. This
means that discontinuity is assumed instead of continuity as the fundamental
substrata of the system. These two elements 1) the assumptions of discontinuity
using the SGS formalism instead of the Component System formalism that was
developed by Kampis and implicitly assumed by Kauffman and 2) the ability of
new genuine possibilities to appear mutating not the components but the map itself
are what distinguishes Emergent Meta-systems.
However, EMS also are based on special systems instead of systems or meta-
systems. SGS and CS are specifically thought of as SYSTEMS not as Meta-
1246
Systems or Special Systems. Special Systems are build up of conjunctions of

elements in a particular hierarchy that is isomorphic to the alternating division
algebras. They perfectly balance themselves between surplus and lack and can
manifest only in very special circumstances. The first level of the special systems
are called Dissipative Structural Systems. They were pioneered by Prigogine and
discussed at length in his book Order Out Of Chaos. These special systems can be
seen as analogous to the the algebras of the real and complex numbers taken
together. If we consider that every system is described by attributes that are reduced
to variables with some order. And if we consider that most systems aspire to having
a real number ordering as the basis of their description. Then what we see is that the
same algebra that unites the real number descriptions of dynamical systems over
time can include the complex numbers as well. The real and complex numbers must
be held in conjunction for this extension of the kinds of numbers to occur within the
algebra that covers both types of numbers. The difference between these types of
numbers cannot be distinguished outside this conjunction. This means that the
special property of complex numbers as distinguished from real numbers vanishes
if they are taken out of conjunction even for a moment. Conjunction is a special
kind of addition that is never completed which holds the variables apart yet
together. The vanishing of the global property that distinguishes the kinds of
numbers can be seen as an annihilation (in physus) or cancellation (in logos). Thus
the meta-systemic operation that appears at the first algebraic level is cancellation
or annihilation depending on which end of the dualistic interval you project the
operation onto. Magician SGSs have the difference between magicians and anti-
magicians that annihilate or cancel as a fundamental operation.
Kauffman speaks of catalytic action. We can clearly see that catalytic action has the
general form of the dissipative structural system. A catalyst is something that does
not participate in a reaction but makes the reaction between molecules more likely
or speeds it up. Therefore by using catalysts we can control reactions creating
pattern of transformations that would not appear otherwise. But the catalyst is aloof
from the actual reaction and remains uneffected by it unless there is some
counteracting catalyst that effects the catalyst itself. When their are chains of
catalysts that effect each other's production then what is created is a hypercycle.
The hypercycle causes negative feedback within the circuit of reactions within the
system. When a hypercycle forms then we have a autocatalytic closure. The closure
is in terms of the meta-reaction control ring. But when we analyze Catalytic action
we see that it involves an ordering from nowhere as do all dissipative systems.
Kauffman talks about order for free or spontaneous order but does not say exactly
1247
how this works or how it suddenly appears. But we can look at the Catalytic regime
to see that it is an ordering from no where. In this case there is a soup of molecules
which is assumed to be within four dimensional spacetime. However, within the
soup the difference between catalysts and non-catalysts sets up a fundamental
distinction that is equivalent to a dimensional difference. The catalyst moves across
the dimensional difference to effect something on the other side that cannot effect it
directly. It can only be effected by something else that creates a complementary
dimensional difference that effects the production of the first catalyst. The fact that
two catalysts can form a feed back structure each effecting the other allows
reactions to turn on, process to a certain point and then turn off automatically
forming a self-controlling process. The fact that several of these feedback control
structures can be linked together in a chain or a ring allows complex processes to be
controlled and form cycles. Now to the effected reaction the catalyst acts on it as if
from nowhere to effect a rate change or to jump-start or prevent a reaction. Some
catalysts act on their own production so that if they are not present to some extent
more cannot be produced. In this case the catalytic agent and what is produced is
the same thing. But still there is a dimensional difference created by its presence or
absence. Bateson called these dimensional differences "differences that make a
difference." Catalysts create thresholds for triggering reactions or stopping
reactions within the soup of reactants. Thus the catalyst is producing an order from
nowhere (from the point of view of the reactant) that controls and orders its
productive or anti-productive efforts. The is the basic form of all dissipative
systems. But normally we think of such system in terms of dissipative structures
such as those described by Prigogine. Such structures have a boundary and a
singularity at the center. Order that is neg-entropic enters at the singularity and
advances toward the border disordering the environment and causing the border to
expand. Because the singularity is smaller than the border in every case by
definition much more reordering of the environment that it experiences as a
disordering occurs than there is ordering poured into the dissipative structural
system from nowhere. If we do not realize that a dissipative structural system has a
dimensional difference embedded in it then we do not recognize the relation
between the dissipative system and the relation between real and complex numbers
within the same algebraic system. But what the model of the complexnionic algebra
adds is a strange twist like an Escher waterfall by which the disordering of the
environment BECOMES the source for the ordering poured into the dissipative
structural system thorough the singularity at its center. In other words a potential
space connects the source of order and the frontier of disorder so that the one
powers the other and vice versa. In this system entropy gives rise to order that in
1248
turn gives rise to entropy in a perpetual loop that will continue as long as there is the
right environment for the system to prosper in (i.e. the right food is available). Not a
lot of dissipative structures completely fulfill the model of the dissipative system
that we get through the analogy with the complexnionic algebras but certain ones
do. For instance the soliton can exist only in a trough. The soliton itself is an
unusual formation that is held together by the reflection of its partial waves off the
bottom and sides of the trough that holds it. Thus in the soliton there is exactly this
kind of circulation that causes the central wave to hold together through the
reflection off the boundary of the trough. And it occurs that the soliton has very
special characteristics that are neg-entropic. Solitons can reflect off walls, pass
thought each other, and go on past all our expectations for any wave only stopped
by the ending of the trough or friction or some external factor. So we see that the
analogy of the dissipative system is fulfilled by the soliton that has ultra-efficient
characteristics. We will find exactly the same situation with each special system. It
manifests ultra-efficiences to the extent it perfectly approximates the conjunctive
formation of one of the alternating division algebras.
The next hierarchical level that appears with the augmentation of conjunction is
the autopoietic system. The autopoietic system is produced by the conjunction of
two dissipative systems. This is represented in analogy by the move up from the
complexnionic algebra to the quaternion algebra. Suddenly instead of one
imaginary number we have three imaginary numbers held in conjunction with the
real numbers. This algebra gives us a formalism for depicting the four dimensional
rotations that in four dimensional space give rise to perpetual motion machines.
Such rotations are blocked in three dimensional space, but their effects can be seen
in other phenomena. In fact in autopoietic systems ultra-effiencies appear that are
directly analogous to four dimensional rotations. This is a surprising and
unexpected result. But algebraically the move to this level causes us to lose the
commutative property. Thus suddenly operations cannot be easily reversed within
the algebraic system so mutual actions become very apparent in their asymmetry.
The loss of the commutative property causes us to focus of mutual actions which no
longer can be reversed simply but are asymmetrical and cause long loops of
supplementary actions to be needed to bring about reversals of operations. Of
course these systems of operators on components may be called Abelian or non-
Abelian depending on whether the order of the application of the operation matters
or not. For any two operators when we lose the commutative property the order
suddenly does matter. And we are suddenly focused on the mutual actions of the
components and the supplements that are needed to reverse the effects of any
1249
particular operation. We will use the formalism called EVOVING ALGEBRAS

developed by Yuri Gurevitch as a means of embodying our component systems
whether they be CS, SGS or EMS. These are 'universal algebras' in the sense that
they are entities with operations but without direct relationships. All relationships
are reduced to signatures of functions and therefore do not have to be explicitly
formulated but can appear as a secondary effect of operations or functions.
Evolving Algebras are a generalization of turing machines that can be applied at
any level of generalization. So by using the Evolving Algebra formalism we are
able to go to the limit of what is turing computable and set the stage for exploring
the quantum computable aspects on that basis. Evolving Algebras seem like a
natural notation for these kinds of Systems. The operations on the entities allow
mutual action to take place that establish dynamic relations between components
(entities). But Evolving Algebras allow us to go further and substitute new
functions or operations as the system develops. So instead of a state space like that
described by Kauffman of embodied feature (gene) combinations we have static
algebras as the synchronic representations of our component systems. Then we have
explicit rules for the changes between synchronic moments that give us a diacrhonic
picture of the development of the system over time. The operation that comes into
existence at the autopoietic level is Mutual Action which is one of the basic
operations of the Magician SGS.
Kauffman talks about systems of catalytic molecules and non-catalytic but

catalyzed molecules that reach auto-catalytic closure. Autopoiesis is more than just
closure but also stability of organization by self-imposed homeostasis of the system.
Autopoiesis was described by Varela and Maturana. We posit that Autopoiesis is
achieved when two dissipative systems co-evolve and are in active conjunction so
that they order each other and thus achieve stasis. This is a condition that goes
beyond just the creation of an autocatalytic closure of the system. Autopoietic
systems exhibit living/cognitive behavior from which the observer cannot be
separated. Merely autocatalytic closed systems still have observer independence as
an assumed condition. Where the dissipative structural system is a chiasm of form
and pattern production, the autopoietic system is a reversible non-dual chiasm of the
living and cognitive characteristics we see in organisms and in cells. As Rescher
has taught us our analogy for a System is the organism which he has broken down
into a series of properties that go beyond what is usually ascribed to formal systems.
Systems are normally reduced to pure forms or objects in formal systems.
Occasionally we see formal structural systems such as Klir's seen in Architecture Of
Systems Problem Solving. In our way of looking at these kinds of organismic
1250
systems that seems to have the paradoxical qualities ascribed by Bergson in

Creative Evolution as 'elan vitale' we see instead machines as do Maturana and
Varela, but machines in the sense of Deleuze and Guattari's desiring machines that
are non-dual and do not make any distinction between organism and machine.
These are very special machines however that exhibit all the characteristics of life
and intelligence as global properties and cannot be separated from the observer. We
need to view them in a relativistic information regime similar to that developed by
Jumarie in System Information And Subjectivity. In such a regime different
observers will have relativistic information about the system under study. Observers
cannot distinguish the living and cognitive aspects of such special machines. They
cannot predict the outcome of any given set of inputs because as well as being auto-
catylaticly closed they are autopoieticaly closed to outside observation. All
observations are interpretations of the homeostatic process of the machine imposing
an order on itself.
In physics the example of a system that embodies the form of the autopoietic
system dictated by the Quaternionic Alternating Division Algebra is
Superconductivity. Superconductivity is a perfect example of an autopoietic system
in its structure and it has the obvious ultra-effiency of zero resistance as a product of
that perfect approximation. To the extent that autopoietic systems approximate the
form of the underlying algebraic structure they have stronger and stronger ultra-
effiencies. In the case of Superconductivity we have a phenomena that would never
been predicted, and is therefore emergent which all theories would have claimed
impossible prior to its discovery. It has taken years to reconcile that phenomena
with known chemistry and quantum effects. Finally a theory has appeared that
explains how quantum mechanics allows such an anomaly to exist. What occurs
according to the standard theory is that Cooper pairs of electrons arise which
communicate to each other via phonons which are the jiggling of the conductive
lattice in which the electrons are traveling. Once Cooper pairs form then they scatter
against each other so that they completely absorb each other's energy and create a
super particle that is exactly double the mass of the electron. This double particle is
just like the conjunction of two dissipative scattering systems. But it forms in such a
way that it uses its environment as the communication channel through the agency
of phonons or waves in the environment itself to allow the electrons to coordinate
their action as they travel through the lattice. The electrons that form a Cooper pair
can be very far apart. As they travel through the lattice they in effect warn each
other of obstacles so that they actually miss all obstacles and resistance goes to
zero. Thus their communication channel using the phonon creates an information
1251
loop that allows the electrons to know the obstacles that are coming up and avoid
them. Thus you can see that the Cooper pairs are fused to their environment by the
phonon that not only connects the conjuncted electrons but also gives them
information about their environment such that they do not have to scatter off
anything in their environment and they can spend all their energy scattering off each
other. This is a very strange situation that is allowed by quantum mechanics but is
not predicted by quantum mechanics in fact it has taken much study to see how
quantum mechanics could allow such a phenomena. But all particles scatter and
have probabilities of being in many states. Two identical particles can scatter off
each other creating a closed system (like an autopoietic system). But you would
think that such a scattering though it did not lose energy would be blind to the
environment. Instead because the two electrons can be seen as exchanging a particle
called a phonon that is quantization of the jiggling of the lattice environment of the
electrons, it is possible for the electrons to know about the global state of that
environment and thus avoid all obstacles. Perturbations go to zero and so the pair of
electrons can speed through the lattice with perfect knowledge that allows it to
avoid every obstacle. So we can see that an autopoietic system with no
purturbationsm, or rather all perturbations avoided must have perfect
foreknowledge of its environment. Thus the closedness of the autopoietic system in
its extreme compliance to the quaternionic formation of the algebraic system is an
open system. This is of course paradoxical but that paradoxicality is very root of all
autopoietic systems. Living autopoietic systems are closed, but experience
perturbations from their environment. Thus, they are not as good an approximation
to the perfect quaternionic blue print. Still they exhibit an ultra-efficiency that we
call life and cognition when viewed form different angles. Life and cognition are
really a single chiasmic characteristic that is ultra-efficient. It is interesting to note
that the perfect ultra-efficient system is totally closed like the mutually scattering
electrons, but also almost psychally open and at the same time fused to its
environment to the extent that it uses the changes in the external environment as its
means of internal communication. Its openness and responsiveness is so complete
that it meets no resistance with its environment because it avoids all possible
perturbations. Its internal information processing and communication between
dissipative elements is through a global connection with its environment that gives
it precognition and a global understanding of that environment. When the
environment becomes a circular trough then it sets up perpetual motion for when
the environment is closed as well as the autopoietic system then the two mirror each
other perfectly. An impossibility suddenly becomes possible and we see in detail
the structure of a system that perfectly mimics the quaternionic four dimensional
1252
rotations that should be forbidden in three dimensional space.
When we think about living/thinking organisms using superconductivity as our

model based on its link to the quaternionic algebraic structure, we can see strange
and beautiful parallels. It is amazing that no one has realized before this that the
descriptions of consciousness made by the phenomenologists derive their oddity
from the fact that consciousness itself is ultra-efficient in a way similar to
superconductivity and four dimensional rotations. However, when we realize that
consciousness is ultra-efficient at its foundation that opens our eyes to the media
thorough which we experience the world every moment of our lives. Suddenly we
realize that ultra-efficiency is our way of life and we deny it to ourselves
continually. It is not a rare phenomena but such a pervasive phenomena that we do
nor recognize because it is literally everywhere we look underlying our every
sensation and perception. The whole point of Phenomenology is that we are inside
the sphere of a closed autopoietic system. Normally we make a lot of assumptions
about what we experience and project a "real" world beyond that closed realm onto
the world. This is called by Berger and Luckmann "the social construction of
reality." We project then reify and then take back in the designated as real world
beyond ourselves. But these processes when bracketed using the Phenomenological
methodology developed by Husserl lead us into a strange realm of pure
consciousness. And that strange realm has all kinds of odd aspects that we normally
gloss over and ignore. It has been said that consciousness is a dream articulated by
sensations. We know sensations are perturbations to the autopoietic system.
Therefore most of what we see as the world "out there" is actually manufactured "in
here." In fact, it is amazing that so much of it seems to bear some resemblance to
any objective "designated as real" world that is shared by more than one person. But
this is due to the fact that sensation is ultra-efficient. In other words, our connection
to the outside world is much better than it ought to be given the number of filters
and transformations the data must go through on the way to becoming perceptions
and cognitions. In fact, suspiciously it is way better than it ought to be. Look at the
detail and exactness of most perceptions in spite of the fact that we are actually
filling in most of those details out self based on little evidence.
When Phenomenologists look at consciousness they immediately focus on

intentionality. Intentionality means that most objects of consciousness are "of
something." In other words we go past our perceptions and the processing of them
to the things themselves or the other people themselves and experience them
directly. So our experience as Heidegger says is ecstatic meaning ex-static -- that is
1253
out of ourselves. So though we are in a completely closed autopoietic system that

we each embody, we actually live our lives "out there" in the world and do not
notice that we are boxed in at all. So our experience of the world is directly opposite
the reality of our imprisonment a closed system. Isn't this exactly the paradoxicality
we find the in the superconducting system? Electrons scatter each other but they
have an almost psychic understanding of the landscape they are careening through
such that they never hit any resistance. So the intentionality of consciousness that
throws us outward into the world is the most fundamental fact of the closed system
discovered by Phenomenology after it has bracketed the external world and all of
our natural presumptions. Next Phenomenolgy sees that consciousness in not just
form and content unmixed as we might expect, but instead mixtures of forming
actions and content that either emphasize the actions or the content. The noesis
emphasizes the actions and the noemata stress the content. But you cannot have
content (hyle) without action or action without content. So we see that patterns and
forms are merged within consciousness. This we might suspect because pattern and
form are merged in the separate dissipative systems that the autopoietic system is
made out of. But what we do not suspect is that consciousness has an ultra-
efficiency connected with both the noesis and noema. In relation to the noema what
we discover is the open infinity of the horizons of discovery. What ever we turn to
we can infinitely explore to any depth desired almost without end except where
constraints blatantly appear. How can the horizons of consciousness that we
normally gloss over and summarize to ourselves so open and unending? We look
out on a forest. We see a certain tree and approach it. We pick a certain leaf and
approach it. We look in detail and close at hand at the fractal landscape of the leaf
and its own special patterns and qualities trapped in the form that is so similar yet
different from all the other leaves. Then we take the leaf and place it under a
microscope and explore it at the microscopic level. We can get more and more
powerful microscopes going down almost to the atomic level and can imagine other
levels beyond that down to the level of the postulated quarks. Or equally we can
take steps into a more an more global macroscopic universe of equal depth. These
almost infinite horizons that surround every nomena in our field of consciousness is
an ultra-efficency of the first order especially when we consider how real the
illusion is that we are actually experiencing the things themselves instead of some
constructed virtual world. All we can think is that our consciousnesses are turned
inside out and are infinitely deep and that depth is the world itself. Or take on the
other hand the noesis side of consciousness that emphasizes the actions of
consciousness in grasping and understanding things. The ultra-effiency that
phenomenology discovers in this real are meanings. The world is full of meanings
1254
to an almost infinite depth and those meanings are explored by our cognitive
processes. There are not end to those meanings that attach themselves to even the
tiniest details of the things we think about and explore. The fact that we normally
waste out time with trivia does not subtract that the world abounds with a plethora
of meanings that flow from almost every aspect we can think of and those meanings
get deeper and deeper the more we explore them. The fact that consciousness is full
of meanings that seem to flow out of the things themselves is a superabundance one
might hardly expect given most dry cognitive models that people invent.
Phenomenology is not a bond dry theoretical picture but an unabashed and honest
look at what our consciousness is really like and what it finds are infinite worlds of
meaning that are even more vast in many ways from the perceptual worlds we
inhabit. Those realms of meaning come somehow from inside us and attach
themselves to the things of our world and become our world of thoughts that
actually in some instances creates things in the so called real world that correspond
to our ideas. And when we compare this to the superconducting autopoietic model
we see this mirrored in the perfect information that the electron pair have of their
environment that is almost clairvoyant. We too have a superabundance of
information about our environment that goes way beyond the information given.
These two ultra-efficiencies of consciousness related to the noesis and noema join
together to give us a superabundantly rich inner and outer world that goes far
beyond what might be expected and is truly a marvel considering that we are closed
autopoietic entities actually cut off from the world from the point of view to
uninvolved observers. We can only really maintain this stance of the objective
behaviorist by lying to ourselves about out own experience and by denying
introspection as a valid mode of scientific inquiry. Only by restricting our
knowledge about ourselves and by falsifying our own experience and calling it
science can we trick ourselves into believing the picture painted by Behaviorism
that was so deftly critiqued by Merleau-Ponty in his The Structure Of Behavior.
Still we have such notions that we can reduce ourselves to machines. We see it in
Deleuze and Guttari's concept of desiring machines and in Maturana and Verela's
autopoietic machines. Only the machine models have gotten more complex and
paradoxical but the fundamental externalist premise is held intact from the days of
Skinner's behaviorism. So our experience is so much richer than any scientific
models of ourselves will allow as the evidence of introspection is disregarded and
our own experiences glossed over and ignored in the name of Science and
Objectivity.
Still we cannot completely ignore this rift. And the rift between model of ourselves
1255
and its experienced reality is so extreme because of the unabashed ultra-effiencies

discovered by Phenomenological research. When you add this to Dialectical,
Structural, and Hermeneutical research the other main methods of the Humanities
we find the picture gets even stranger and stranger. Ultra-effiencies abound even in
these methods that attempt to distance ourselves from ourselves. When instead we
follow the lead of Heuristic Research and do away with distancing methodologies
all together we discover the profound depth to our own and other's experiences. The
depth and variety of the ultra-effiencies we call consciousness are incredible and
they are all glossed over and ignored as a routine matter of dismissive science trying
to do the impossible which is be objective about ourselves. That is the one thing we
cannot do. It is ironic that Science strives in one of the few directions we have no
unexpected ultra-efficient advantage as it denies all the avenues by which we are
helped beyond all expectations. However, by comparing consciousness to the
quaternionicly based phenomena of superconductivity, we have realized that there
are points in which the systems are indeed comparable. And it is not only the
structures that are comparable but the strange and unexpected results of the
superabundance of ultra-efficient modes in perception and cognition that working
with the distorted sensational perturbations builds a world full of meaning and
abounding detail and then puts us in the midst of it.
Finally we move to the last level of the alternating division algebras that
correspond to what are called octonionic algebras and which we call the reflexive
special systems. Here we have seven imaginaries held in conjunction with the real
variables. These are balanced by seven quaternions corresponding to each
imaginary as a specialized holographic group of imaginaries. When we move to this
level of special organization we lose another algebraic property, the associative
property. By losing the associative property in the algebra we become focused on
the associations between things in patterns within the analogous special system.
This means the operator of Gestalt Pattern Formation appears that is the final
operator that becomes available in Magician SGSs. The magicians form patterns in
their swarm. The magicians recognize their own patterns. This makes the magician
SGS social by definition as they are reflexively concerned with their own
associations with other magicians. At this level a fundamental distortion appears
due to the non-associative properties of the algebra. These distortions have the
effect of creating a ground against which non-distortions are recognized as a meta-
pattern recognition capability. There are three kinds of non-distortions in the
western worldview that are significant beyond all others. These are called truth,
reality and identity. Together they form a part of Being in the Greek language. But
1256
when we look deeper we see that beyond being part of Being they each have a
fundamental relation to the noumena. The noumena as defined by Kant is the part of
the thing that never manifests which is beyond the appearances studied by
Phenomenology. That which never appears that is the thing beyond all its
appearances is what seems beyond Being. Levinas has written about what is
Beyond Being in a book of that name. In effect it describes not what is actually
beyond all Being but beyond are normal definitions of Being. Truth, Reality and
Identity each relate what appears to what never appears in manifestation. Thus these
different aspects of Being stretch beyond the Being of pure manifestation to form a
deep picture of the relation between appearances and REALTY, TRUTH or the
IDENTICAL. When we look at formal systems these three aspects are seen in our
attempts to prove completeness, consistency and soundness. When we look at
things that appear and our statements about that then we must consider their
determinateness or indeterminateness, their decidability or undecidability and their
distinguishability and indistinguishability. Our world is full of things that span the
spectrum on all three dimensions between the most indeterminate undecidable and
indistinguishable on the one hand to the most perfect formal system on the other
hand that is ultimately decidable, distinguishable, and determinate. Unfortunately
for us it has been proved that we cannot create an absolutely consistent formal
system, and we must doubt that the ultimate in distinguishability and
determinateness is possible either given the imprecision of our world. Quantum
mechanics more or less is the death knell to completeness as things can be seen as
either particles or waves (or indeterminate particles). Distinguishability is
confounded by the paradoxes that occur in all category systems that cause us to
create multiple category systems for the same sets of things and do not allow us to
decide finally between those.
So we see that at the Reflexive special system level there is a difference that makes
a difference produced between the distortions produced in associations and the
discerned truth, reality, and identity of things that appear in the world beyond the
phenomena. For though we live out among the things of the world and feel that we
experience them directly when we look closer we become lost in a whole series of
cunumdrums that the myriad philosophies prove are overwhelming. Science of
course prefers to pretend ignorance of philosophical issues, and by ignoring
philosophy becomes even more naively philosophical than it would be if it were a
bit more savvy. But each of us every day are engaged in sorting out the Real world,
the Truth, and the self identity of the things we encounter. We stake our lives on our
judgments in these matters continually. This is why Berger and Luckmann talk
1257
about the SOCIAL construction of reality, or truth or identity. We base our

judgments not only on our own experience and intuitions but on the experience and
judgments of others that we trust that we encounter in ongoing social situations.
The ability to discern gestalt pattern formations in the underlying swarming
substance of ourselves (if we follow the Magician SGS model) is a fundamentally
social endeavor that is built into us from the foundations. That social nature that is
primal, prior to the arising of any individual, is also intimately connected to the
emergent. What is true, real and identical changes dramatically over time. We need
to be in tune with those changes that are either superficial (called artificial
emergence) or profound (called genuine emergence). Artificial emergence arises as
we have said by the chance combination of features (genes) to form some
component combination that has never been seen before. Genuine emergence arises
when a new instance of a new kind of thing orthogonal to what already is possible
and exists arises either from the inside (new meanings) or outside (new things not
seen or heard of before). Notice that emergences appear on the inward and outward
horizons of the ultra-effiencies of our consciousness. The social is according to
G.H. Mead the ability of our socialized species to create and respond to emergent
eventities appearing inwardly or outwardly. We cannot do that alone! That takes the
ultimate in subtle testing by the intersubjective cohort from all angles to see
whether then new thing is genuinely new or not. Only a group of us working
together can do that. And by that work we radically transform the world we all
project together. We create new rewritten pasts that show how our history leads up
to that emergent event and we project new futures based on the existence of the
emergent entity. The final reflexive level that establishes the social actually takes us
into an new horizon where there is endless manifestation of novelty. Changes are
continually occurring at the level of facts, experiments, theories, paradigms (Kuhn),
epistemes (Foucault), and interpretations of Being (Heidegger). Many of these are
radical changes brought on via genuine emergence of the utterly new. It is this level
of functionality that any real social simulation must capture to be authentic. It is this
level that the formalism of the Emergent Meta-system attempts to lay bare for
exploration.
The component system of Kampis can only capture the kind of novelty that occurs
when we put together a set of components that had never been put together before.
But this combination existed in the design landscape described by Kauffman's NK
model. Because it did not actually get embodied did not mean that it did not exist as
a possibility covered by the design landscape. Goertzel's SGS model goes further.
Because it is based on Chaos theory and that theory mixes order and disorder in a
1258
non-intuitive way we see that it covers a much greater territory when it comes to
novelty. The pattern formation operator of the Magician SGS must not only
recognize patterns in itself that it has seen before but also new ones that it has not
seen before. When it looks at what seems to be disorder this may only be a pattern
that it cannot recognize as such as yet due to the fact that it is trapped in a chaotic
attractor that is larger than its computational ability. Component systems create
open ended computational search problems. SGSs go further and actually produce
problems that may be finite but will take longer than the universe has existed to
compute. So there may be a new order that we cannot recognize because it is part of
a very large attractor cycle or even a strange attractor that does not repeat itself but
is endlessly self-similar. So both CS and SGS open up horizons to the new and SGS
even goes so far that they might arise out of the finite or the infinitely self-similar.
But neither of them guarantee being able to recognize these novelties. An Emergent
Meta-System goes further. It sets as its goal to recognize new instances of new
kinds of things that are genuinely emergent and appear orthogonally to what already
is possible or exists. This is precisely what a social meta-system does. Therefore we
must set ourself a goal that goes far beyond conventional artificial intelligent
learning systems who generally attempt to relearn things after the fact and
occasionally learn something new by some kind of theorem proving within a formal
system. EMS must learn the unheard of, unexpected, considered impossible in order
to replicate social learning. So in the EMS contrary to SGS we talk positively about
the hardest problem, the recognition of or production of the emergent event. Of
course, we scale that problem by stating that it only has to be emergent to the SGS
magician system that is the receptor of the emergent event. So it does not have to be
emergent to the human race at this point in their history. Magician systems
recognize some novelty in themselves. Goertzel summarizes this with his equation
creativity equals rules plus randomness where randomness might actually be an
unrecognizable order. The EMS deals with the problem that unrecognizable orders
must become recognizable to be embodied as emergent eventities. This recognition
of the unrecognizable that sounds like another special system paradox is the crux of
EMS. EMS confronts this daunting challenge by embodying the ultra-effiencies we
have discovered at all the levels of dissipative, autopoietic and reflexive special
system formations. In other words, magician SGSs has a structure has a structure of
a meta-algebra with three different operators. These are the annihilation, mutual
action, and Pattern formation operators. Annihilation presumes mutual creation
among the magician components as well out of the background social field. We
attribute that creation operator that Goertzel does not mention that must be the
complementary of the annihilation operator to the level of the algebra operating on
1259
the real numbers alone. Real numbers appear as values in variables and out of that
all systems and special systems and meta-systems are formed. The addition of a
dissipative level that can act as a nowhere for the original real level that can order it
brings with it the ability to annihilate the two by taking them out of conjunction.
Then we added mutual action when we lost the commutative property and gestalt
pattern formation and recognition when we lost the associative properties as our
algebras weakened. Mutual action and gestalt pattern formation are clearly also dual
operators. The magician SGS components act on one another to create patterns in
themselves and then those patterns are recognized by them. The recognition of
patterns in themselves is what assures that the social fabric is fundamental in
magician systems. Entities can have mutual action without being socially connected
in a fundamental way. But things that recognize mutually constructed patterns in
themselves are engaging in a social action that is emergent. Magician SGSs
therefore have operators associated with each ultra-efficient level and this
structuring of their operators assure a global coherence to the Magician formal
system that can recognize newness within the swarm in the guise of the
unrecognizable. What EMS adds to this is a specific modeling of each layer based
on the analogies between the special systems and the alternating division algebras.
What we hope is that the ultra-efficiencies that are harnessed by this close modeling
of the special systems will allow us to recognize the unrecognizable. Not recognize
it as unrecognizable but recognize what it is in truth, in its reality, in its actual
identity.
This means that for Emergent Meta-Systems the Kauffman landscapes must not
just dynamically change as EMS components co-evolve with fitness landscapes
projected from each to each. Rather the landscape maps of the design landscape of
all possible EMS components must occasionally transform as completely new
possibilities give rise to new individuals of orthogonally different kinds. This utter
transformation of the landscape is not just the loss of covergence as we adjust the K
parameter. It is the remapping in a completely different dimensional configuration
that accounts for new kinds and unexpected and confounding things appearing out
of no where without warning. In other words our maps must assume discontinuity
and prove continuity instead of the other way around as Kauffamns maps do. One
way to effect this kind of modeling from a simulation point of view is to realize that
it could be that we do not just have one swarm but a whole series of swarms that are
isolated and then suddenly commingle. In this way the magicians suddenly
encounter the utterly new within their own frame of reference which is magician
swarms. Goertzel has created a Simulation Ecology and Environment (SEE)
1260
formalism that creates a network of ecologies for magician SGSs. If we imagine

different swarms of magicians moving through these connected environments then
we can think of them as being isolated for a while and then suddenly confronting
another tribe of magicians SGSs that are of a totally different construction with their
own history. These confrontations within the SEE could be one way to simulate
emergent events. The node in the SEE where they meet then becomes the
experimental chamber where we see how they react and change in the presence of a
new kind of swarm that them must begin to co-evolve with.
Another point of extreme interest is the fact that Magicians SGSs can be seen to be
composed of content that are themselves swarms of Magicians. So although the
SEE gives us an external environment for magicians to inhabit it does not say
anything about the internal construction of the Magicians themselves. We could
model them at a single level of manifestation designing them specifically to
function. But a more interesting possibility is to think how to create magicians out
of magician swarms at some lower level of design. And it then becomes a matter of
design how many such levels might exist and whether any of these levels can be re-
entrant or whether there is a specific magician design at some level. What this
possibility tells us is that although the external horizon is limited by the SEE there is
no necessary limit to the internal horizon of the designed Magician SGS. This lack
of articulated internal horizon can be seen to correspond to the fact that the
Reflexive level borders on the endless arising of emergent eventities. There may be
no limit to the internal virtual worlds of the Magician SGSs. Even though the
external environment is set in some sense the internal mirroring of that external
environment is free from constraint. Of course it is possible to create an external
environment that can evolve and change using Evolving Algebra notation there is
still not the same level of dynamism outwardly as we can conceive inwardly.
Another constraint we place on the simulation is the use of Cellular Games as the
medium for the magicians in the swarm to relate to one another. Cellular games is
an extension of the concept of the cellular automata. But cellular automata have
rules that apply to all the cells in an array. We should not that cellular automata are
perfect examples of dissipative structural systems. However, cellular games seek to
apply Genetic Algorithms in order to discover rules that converge on certain fitness
functions. Each cell creates its own rules and evolves that rule with succeeding
generations as cells die and new cells are given new cells. Cellular Games solves
the problem of the organization of nodes with the SEE and establishes the
fundamental dissipative foundation out of which the higher levels of conjunction
1261
are constructed within the EMS according to the application of the algebraic
models. By referring to a game it establishes this dissipative field as fundamentally
social as all games are social to some extent. And by using the Genetic Algorithm
structure we get the fundamental dynamic of the swarm that will allow it to evolve
naturally. The genetic algorithm will be modified to allow for the nomination and
voting process of the Magician SGSs as well. But the operations of mutual action
and gestalt pattern formation will be modeled on the cellular game structure.
Therefore we see that our design of an prototype Artificial Intersubjectivity
simulation is pre-constrained by the SEE environment, the EMS augmentation of
SGSs, the definition of EMSs via the Evolving Algebras notation extended toward
quantum computability, and the fundamental dissipative structure will be taken
from Cellular Games. In this way we attempt to use other formalisms as tools that
constrain but advance out design of artificial socialization.
We note that the dissipative structural system within the cellular game motif gives
us cells that appear as our embodiments of desiring machines. These desiring
machines are the lower level strata out of which individuals are expected to rise
spontaneously as emergent global properties. Then these individuals are expected to
produce the social relations as a further level of social construction of truth, reality
and identity which has the goal of recognizing or producing emergent eventities.
However, since the desiring machine level is embedded in the primal social fabric
from the beginning the social is not just produced as relations between individuals
but are embedded in individuals from the beginning. When we consider a
component soup, we should not just consider the chunks floating around but also
the medium in which they float. In this case the soups medium is the social fabric
and the chunks are desiring machines that give rise spontaneously to individuals
that have social relations while moving through the lifecycle of the swarm and co-
evolving. These swarms move through the SEE and occasionally or often as the
case may be interact changing one swarms design landscape radically without
necessarily randomizing it. This swarm is asked to recognize that change and
realign itself internally to cope with it perhaps giving rise to new eventities in the
process that it can recognize as new patterns in itself that correspond to vital
changes that arise internally or externally. Many levels of swarms within magicians
allow our simulation to create robust internal virtual worlds to model its situation.
The depth of the hierarchy of magician SGSs within magicians is unbounded
whereas the static or dynamic SEE is practically bounded and corresponds to the
external virtual world of the EMS.
1262
Beyond the last alternating division algebra there are further levels of non-division
algebras. The next level is representative of all the others and is called the Sedenion
(more properly the sedecimnion or 16nion). When we move to this level we lose a
cluster of minor properties the most important of is the ability to divide which
implies a loss of linearity. Our major interpretation of the algebras that connect and
give intertranformablity between variables is as timestreams through which the
dynamical systems unfold. Each timestream can be considered to be an autonomous
agent in spacetime, or together then can be seen to make up a composite agent that
can intertransform between timestreams to maintain quasi continuity. But when we
reach the Sedenion level these time stream can no longer be seen as infinite lines
but instead must be seen as circles because multiplication of two positive numbers
can give us zero as a result. This in effect isolates the fifteen octonions that appear
within the Sedenion. The Sedenion contains multiple independent worlds. We can
use this fact to create multiple worlds within our EMS simulation. These worlds
though are not all equal and in fact it is highly possible that three of the worlds are
ultra-efficient bearing as worlds the same kind of relation to each other that the
quaternions have with their strange holoidal interpenetration. This insight came
from the analysis of the Minimal Design Methods that I have written about on
former occasions. It turned out that when I applied the theory of Holonomic and
Ultra-efficient systems to the field of possible design methods I found that there
were exactly four dissipative minimal methods out of the sixteen possible ones.
These four dissipative special systems combined to create six virtual autopoietic
systems special and then fifteen virtual reflexive special systems. Of these fifteen
three were different from all the rest. These three managed some how to bridge the
fundamental constraining of all the combinations of minimal methods. That
fundamental constraint is the impossibility of making certain combinations of
methods so that the whole design is invisible from any one of the four major
viewpoints on any real time systems design. But at the reflexive level this
fundamental gap was miraculously bridged in three of the reflexive special systems
leading to the discovery of an ultra-effiency at the reflexive level to complement
those examples of solitons and supercondictivity analogous to the lower levels. This
surprising development leads me to speculate that there is a similar differentiation
of worlds at the Sedenion level. This would mean that there are not only ultra-
efficient characteristics of aspects within worlds but whole worlds themselves are
ultra-efficient. We can understand this by thinking about the phenomenal of Flow
that occurs psychologically. In flow we temporally enter into a different world
where time stops and things we do exactly occupy us and take us to our limits but
not beyond. We posit that there is a social counterpart to flow. That social
1263
counterpart is the chiasm between the collective unconscious first shown us by Jung
and social consciousness that amounts to mutual resonance and joint trances like
those described by George Leonard in the SILENT PULSE. The chiasmic fusion of
social consciousness and social unconsciousness is Social Flow. Where individual
flow has time stand still social flow is dynamic resonance and trance that brings us
into touch with the archetypes in the collective unconscious. We hypothesize that in
the ultra-efficient worlds we enter into social flow and thus live within the
quaternion structure rather than viewing it from the outside.
The quaternion structure is a very interesting one that is the very model of
interpenetration. It is a holonomic structure in which each part is simultaneously the
whole containing all the other parts and a part being contained. The containment is
reminiscent of Hypersets or Non-well-founded sets defined first by Aczel. But in
the quaternionic structure there are only three such elements and the sets are never
directly members of themselves. Instead they are only members of themselves
thorough the mediation of one of the other elements of the quaternionic system. We
can see that the quaternionic system is such that the three elements together produce
the singularity. But in pairs they produce each other. Since commutative property is
lost if you reverse the order of the pairs they produce the opposite of the other. And
since each one is both whole and part at the same time following perfectly the
dictates of Koestler's Holons, each one produces the others who in turn produce the
first one and its opposite in an endless self-referring braid. At the quaternion level
what we have is a mirror structure that reflects everything in the universe. At the
octonions level seven different quaternions appear that reflect each other and this is
the top of an endless set of layers defined by Pascal's triangle. The top three layers
of this infinite pyramid are different in that they define the alternating division
algebras. As we proceed from these layers using the Cayley-Dickson process to
create new non-division non-associative non-commutative non-linear algebras we
get a picture of Indra's net of the interpenetration of the universe where every jewel
in the net reflects all the other jewels. This is the highest vision of the
interpenetration of emptiness produced by the Mahayana Hua Yen Buddhists.
When we move to the Sedenion level though there is a surprise. Although, there is
no more linearity or division property of this algebra as a whole there is still the
differentiation of the three ultra-efficient octonions from the other twelve. If were
were to enter into the social flow that produced these ultra-efficent worlds we
would find ourselves within the holonic and holoidal structure that we see from the
outside in the quaternion. The quaternion is impregnable only reflecting the other
autopoietic nodes in Indra's net. But suddenly an emergent event might occur and
1264
flip us into the social flow that define these three ultra-efficient worlds that are three
aspects of the same one actually one. A higher goal of the EMS simulation might be
to emulate social and psychological flow and the advent of the ultra-efficient
worlds. If we look at the book The Invisible Landscape by the MacKennas we see
in that some indications of what this world might be like. They predict social and
psychological catastrophes in which our consciousness as a historical
intersubjective totality are suddenly raised. The entry into ultra-efficient worlds
would have a similar effect. We see this on a small scale with the prevalent social
form of the cult and their end of the world scenarios that some times lead to mass
suicide. The idea of mass suicide leads us to now consider the effects of meta-
systems on our definition of the EMS. Unlike the SGS the EMS is a meta-system
not a system. So it is necessary to understand what this transformation might mean.
The Sedenion structure represents the meta-system structure. It along with all the
other layers of Pascal's triangle embody that structure that together form Indra's
interpenetrating net.
The primary feature of the Meta-system is complementarity. We understand this in

terms set forth by Arkady Plotnitsky in his books Complementarity, In The Shadow
Of Hegel and Reconfiguraions. In these books Plotnitsky explores the connections
between the work of Bohr, Derrida, Godel and Bataille. He shows that each of these
theorist's work point in a very similar direction even though they had very different
starting points. Of special interest is the work of Bataille who in The Accursed
Share makes the distinction between a restricted and a global economy. A restricted
economy in our terms is a system gestalt and a global economy in out terms is a
meta-system proto-gestalt. A global economy has essentially no boundaries to the
circulation of information and energy. Whereas artificial limits are imposed on the
systems restricted economy in order to make sense of it in isolation from the rest of
the worlds energy and information economy. Essentially the news of the meta-
system is that this artificial separation cannot be supported and maintained an
always breaks down. Every restricted system economy is haunted by its meta-
systemic shadow which have been explored by Godel and following him Derrida.
Undecidability is one of the major aspects that haunt all closed formal systems that
arise through the suppression of the global economy. And undecidability is between
complementary opposite formulations that arise between systems views of some
phenomena. So we may say that every system has a shadow complementary anti-
system that is repressed in any particular systemic formulation. The difference
between Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry is an example. The anti-system
hovers in the background and appears when the system's axioms of closure are
1265
questioned. Then we suddenly find that the system and anti-system are
complementary antinomies that if formulated separately and simultaneously cancel
each other out as Kant suggested. So we are forced to make a decision between the
system and the anti-system but no real basis for such a decision exists. As we
oscillate between the two we find that one highlights some aspects of the
phenomena we are describing while the other highlights other aspects and the
tradeoff in the highlights is what makes the two complementary. As Bohr says
about Quantum complementarity these two exclusive formulations is all we have as
a means of looking at the phenomena that is being modeled. There is no deeper
theory that will unify the two because complementarity is intrinsic to the meta-
system.
Undecidability of the meta-system is only one of its complementary aspects.

Looking at it from another point of view we could see indistinguishably or
indeterminateness in the same light. So we see that the meta-system is where the
truth, reality, and identity of the system breaks down and shades off into the milieu
of the global economy that the system cannot ultimately be separated from.
Ultimately we cannot draw the boundary of the system and distinguish it from the
gestalt background on which it is a figure. Ultimately we cannot tell if the system is
complete because we cannot enumerate all of its elements decisively. Finally
ultimately we cannot decide between complementary alternative formulations of
the system. What we see is that the opposite of the consistency, completeness and
soundness of the system that we formulate is the inconsistency, incompleteness and
unsoundness of the global meta-system. That meta-system is always already lost as
the origin of the system. That meta-system is the indefinable arena of the interaction
of systems and anti-systems where myriads of unexpected effects arise to effect that
interaction. Notice here that the relation of the system and the anti-system and their
cancellation reminds us of the Magician and anti-Magicians of the SGS. However,
Goertzel has only thought the Magician SGS in terms of a system not in terms of a
meta-system. So the question becomes how do we make the magician SGS into a
meta-system?
The meta-system spontaneously gives rise to systems and anti-systems that either
annihilate (in physus) or cancel (in logos). But we can go on to note that meta-
systems also spontaneously produce increasing or decreasing positive feedbacks.
These are called either miracles or black-holes in common parlance. So that the
meta-system is always a dangerous landscape for either the system or the anti-
system to inhabit. These unaccountable increasing or decreasing returns are exactly
1266
what systems theory is designed to avoid. And they are avoided by the use of
negative feedback loops. In essence the autopoietic system is an attempt to find a
balance in the unbalanced landscape of the global economy by using a hypercycle
of negative feedbacks. But all that has to happen is for that hypercycle to lose one
member and become odd (?) for a positive feedback that either increases or
decreases out of control to be created from a balancing hypercycle. If the control
cycle is not fixed then the autopoietic system would break apart and be destroyed by
too much positive feedback. In the global economy there is no conservation. In
other words energy is created out of nothing and destroyed taking it back into
nothing in ways that are incomprehensible. This is why we attempt to stick to
systems and avoid the meta-systemic shadows that haunt all out constructions.
However, what Bataille noticed is that Societies make use of meta-systemic effects
and turn them into positive social value. This ability to create transcendentals out of
pure gifts or deprivations by society shows that all social fields must be meta-
systemic. That is why emergence is identified with the social by G.H. Mead. An
emergence is a pure gift and is balanced by Holocausts that are pure
incomprehensible destructions for no reason. Either one can be a source of meaning
in the global economy. What we notice here is that our concept of ultra-effiency
must be balanced by the concept of ultra-ineffiency and that these ideas actually
arise as complementarities out of the general economy spontaneously. So the EMS
must be a meta-system not a system.
I have studied what it takes to turn the Magician SGS into a meta-system and this
occurs by changing a single assumption about them. That assumption is that the
swarm lives on after the voting. You see that although the revolutionary lifecycle of
the swarm is discontinuous there is still a continuity of spacetime underlying their
formulation. What we need to do is break this continuity of spacetime and suddenly
we have a meta-system. This is similar to the loss of linearity as we move from the
Octonion to the Sedenion level of algebra. There are no longer infinitely long linear
timestreams but the timestreams suddenly move in circles. We move from linear
time quite naturally to circular time that rules the great bulk of Indra's net defined
by the Pascal triangle of non-division algebras beneath the cap stone of the three
division algebras. That cap stone is like short term memory to long term memory
within our psychological functioning. The space within which linearity exists as an
illusory continuity is very restricted and limited in comparison to the whole of
Indra's net. The cap stone allows us to relate different timestreams worldlines
within spacetime. But what we find is that as we relate more and more of them our
algebras weaken. We can only really completely intertransform between two
1267
timestreams. And it might be for this reason that superstring theory works as a basis
for physics. Superstring theory posits that one dimensional strings not
dimensionless particles should be the basis of our physics. These one dimensional
strings create worldsheets that connect the two worldlines defined by their ends.
These worldsheets reflect the connection within the complexnion algebra of the real
and imaginary numbers held in conjunction. If we take these worldsheets and
connect their ends creating loops then this is equivalent to gravitons which cannot
be distinguished from spacetime itself. We have just formed worldsheets that
envelop a region of spacetime. These are equivalent to autopoietic systems. On the
loop moving through spacetime we lose the property of directionality but gain a
topological orientation where deformations in the circular worldsheet define its
properties. Interacting circular worldsheets would give us a system equivalent to the
reflexive system we have lost another property but gain an understanding of long
range fields within spacetime. These superstring theories highlight the importance
to physical theory of the alternating division algebras. This can be seen in the work
of Frank (Tony) Smith and X. Dixon who use the octonion as a basic component of
their physical models. And as Onar Aam has suggested this shows that the physical
laws with their forces and particles as they exist in supersymmetries that fall out of
superstring theory are themselves ultra-efficient in some sense. If we quantize our
universe as Hawking as recently proposed we do rather than particles what we see
are all the possible universes arising out of the probability density function of our
universe. Ours and the dual shadow universe that arises in string theory is most
probable because this is the one in which there is an ultra-efficient resonance of the
fundamental laws and constants of physical theory. It is not just that consciousness
is ultra-efficient but on the other hand the laws of the universe that we live in are
also ultra-efficient in the sense that because they form a resonant synergy they have
out lasted all the others that are not ultra-efficient which have merely become
fluctuations that quickly fade away within the probability wave function of the
universe that gives a picture of all possible other universes. To say it another way,
because one particular synergetic combination of forces and particles that are based
on the symmetries of SO(32) or E8 X E8 is ultra-efficient all other combinations
cannot persist as long so this becomes the natural basis for a universe that produces
intelligent life (dissipative autopoietic reflexive special systems) which are also
ultra-efficient who can look out at that universe and attempt to discover its laws.
Physicists always marvel that mathematics can be used to describe nature so exactly
even in its inexactness as with quantum mechanics. This is because behind the
dualistic split between logos and physus is a single unique nomos that is the basis of
the ultra-effiencies of both sides of the dualism. Existence itself is the chiasmic
1268
non-dual reversibility between these two obstinately different views of the kosmos.
One is centered on us but cannot get rid of the external world and the other is
centered on the external world but cannot get rid of our participation in it. The
chiasmic world that gives rise to these two complementary systems for viewing the
kosmos is inherently meta-systemic and the ultra-effiencies arise spontaneously out
of the meta-systemic field. They are balanced by the ultra-ineffiencies of blackholes
in the universe and of nothingness that Sartre finds at the heart of consciousness.
If we assume that spacetime itself is discontinuous such that at then end of the
lifecycle of a swarm all the current members died and then those that survived the
nomination and voting were resurrected to flourish in the next lifecycle duration
then the magician SGS would suddenly become a Self-Generating Meta-System
(SGMS). This would also bring what might seem to amount to insuperable
problems that are so radical as to be impossible to overcome. Problems such as
where do the spoors of the next generation get deposited, how do they become
revived, what happens to spacetime that is discontinuous? All very serious
problems that perhaps we do not want to face. The theory of Emergent Meta-
systems face these problems and others like them directly and explicitly. Goertzel's
Magician SGSs can be interpreted as meta-systems but we must realize that this is
really a radical extension of his ideas, so it is better to realize what we are dealing
with here is essentially a different animal and begin to deal with under the rubric of
the EMS. Once we add the radical discontinuity of the spacetime substrata to the
discontinuity of the swarm itself with its separate lifecycles then the question of
whether SGSs accept radical emergence becomes moot. Suddenly we are dealing
with a completely different situation where there is radical and deep discontinuity
we are assuming is primary over any kind of continuity. And it is very difficult to
see how we might get ourselves out of this theoretical corner gracefully.
When we look back into the intellectual history of the planet we see that there are
really very few people to ever suggest such a bold hypothesis. However, it is not
without some precedent. To point of fact there is one group that held exactly this
position and they were the Mahayana Buddhists, the very people who posited that
emptiness IS interpenetration and formulated the image of Indra's net of jewels that
all reflected each other. Their view of Karmic action contained this very paradox of
complete cessation and continuity. Their image for the resolution of this paradox
was the Tathagata Gharba (The Womb of Thusness Coming). For them all of
manifestation was autopoieticly closed into a womb. But that womb had a dynamic
driven by Karma. Yet they did not believe in any self that the karmic deposits might
1269
be attached to so there was a basic paradox between the illusion of Karmic

causation of phenomena within the womb of thusness that comes through Karmic
action and the reality of the illusion f the self to which those karmic deposits are
attached. Basically they posited that there was what is called the Alaya-vijnana or
Storehouse Consciousness. The Storehouse Consciousness was at the root of
manifestation and it is where the seeds of karmic causation were planted by desires
that later bloomed into phenomena. So they embraced the paradox of radical
discontinuity by positing a different kind of place wherein the seeds were placed
that was essentially outside or deep within the tathagata gharbha.
Our answer to the problem of radical discontinuity is very similar. We are going to
posit something beyond spacetime which we will follow the formalism of Evolving
Algebra to call the Reserve. The Reserve is the place equivalent to the Storehouse
Consciousness where the seeds are laid down that later bloom to give rise to another
generation of an EMS swarm. In other writings I have jokingly referred to this as
the Akkashic Record, where mystics say all the knowledge that ever existed is
stored and can be accessed in a manner suggestive of Plato's recollection. However,
we will go further and develop the concept of the Reserve into an important aspect
of our theory of EMSs. Let us begin by positing that there are actually three
Reserves one associated with each of the dimensions related to Truth, Reality and
Identity. These together form a three dimensional space with positive or negative
direction out of which each thing brought into existence comes. Purely negative
things are have little truth, reality or identity. Purely positive things drawn form the
reserve have less falsehood, illusion, or difference. Or something drawn from the
reserve might have a mixture of positive and negative features on these dimensional
scales. Things when they are created are drawn from the Reserves and when they
are destroyed (annihilated or canceled) they return to the reserves. Thus the process
of manifestation continually circulates things out into manifestation (tathagata
gharba) from the reserves (alaya-vijnana) and back out again. But also because the
Reserves are a potential phasespace it can also be invested with the seeds of the
winning EMS components that survived the vote so that they can fructify in the next
instant. Or we could look at it a different way and say that EMS components that
win the vote are instantatons that pop in and out of the Reserves as they circulate in
and out of spacetime. This gets across the idea that they are a potential trough
outside spacetime through which things may circulate and remain continuous even
though spacetime is itself discontinuous. Now we have not just shifted the problem
of continuity back a level because we can immediately say that this quasi-potential
trough through which EMS instantatons might travel or seeds may be laid down
1270
both does and does not exist at the same time. In other words from one point of
view it exists and form another point of view it does not exist. To the extent it exists
we are supporting continuity and to the extent it does not exist we are supporting
radical discontinuity. Our viewpoint is that it does AND does not exist. So you can
see that what we have done is forced the complementary of the meta-system on the
problem of continuity and discontinuity. This is probably the most sophisticated
intellectual position that can be obtained vis a vis the problem of continuity and
discontinuity. It is essentially supra-rational having the nature of what the Zen
Buddhists call a Koan.
We will also introduce another formalism here in order to understand the nature of
the relation between manifestation and hiding (or the noumena). What we need is a
logic of showing and hiding along each of the dimensions we have described. This
is given to us by August Stern's MATRIX LOGIC. Matrix Logic combines logic
and mathematical matrix operations to produce a single system that is far stronger
than ordinary logic. One of its features is that it uses vector truth values. These
vectors can take the bra or ket forms and be transformed by truth table matrices.
Within the matrices in the ordinary formulation due to Stearn it is possible to have
three truth values in the two palaces of the vector -- 00 indicates neither true or
false; 10 indicates true not false; 01 indicates false not true; and 11 indicates both
true and false. So the matrix logic allows both neither...nor and both...and partial
truths. But matrix logic goes beyond that to allow a negative truth value that can be
interpreted as hidden. This generates another five kinds of partial truth which has to
do with whether the truth is partially hidden to completely hidden. We will go
beyond that and add one further form of truth value which is imaginary that has to
do with self-reference. This adds another eleven partial truth values to give sixteen
partial truth values in all. This is based on an application of Greimas Square to the
completion of the truth values extending Stern's original system. Once we have
identified each of these truth values and applied them to the truth dimension of the
reserve it is realized immediately that we need to apply it to the reality and identity
dimensions as well. This gives us an immediate bonus of showing how we can
manipulate the movement of things in and out of the reserve using Matrix Logic
operations. But it also shows us that at the center of every object there is a
quaternion of imaginary values from each of these dimensions. That quaternion of
values is how each thing enters into Indra's net. In the reserve each thing is merely a
jewel in Indra's net. It is a perfect holoidal and holonic form to the extent it is
referencing itself only. When something is manifested then that pure jewel is
eclipsed by being hidden or rendered positive or negative along the dimension of
1271
either truth, reality or identity.
Now we have a complete theory of the manifestation of things. Something may be

manifest as an appearance along any of the dimensions or it may be hidden as a
noumena or it may become more completely hidden in the reserve. To the extent it
is only self-referring it can be within the reserve. To that extent we can say based on
Godel's diagonalization process that it is impossible to prove that it is or is not
within the system of manifestation. Thus we get by a fluke of our formal logic's
limitations that the existence AND non-existence of the Reserve and its contents is
perfectly possible. The intermediate position of the Reserve is similar to the
position of hidden variable models in Quantum Mechanics. As such the EMS as
meta-systemic element is a contingent possibility which we can actually use to
produce results within the world. By making the EMS a meta-system we can unite
the global structure of the SGSs with its operators and the specific structures of each
of the division algebras into a single formalism that is actually opposite General
Systems Theory in every way. We have constructed a General Meta-Systems
Theory of which EMS is the embodiment. It is not just that every system has an
anti-system but also every system has its meta-systemic shadow and this can be
realized as a dynamic embodiment through the articulation of EMSs.
o O o
Emergent Meta-Systems have the following features:

They are quantum computable.
They are extensions of the Component Systems and Self-Generating Systems of
Kampis and Goertzel that are also quantum computable.
They account for genuine emergent events.
They are meta-systems not systems.
They embody radical discontinuity through the positing of Reserves that both exist
and do not exist.
They contain partial systems and anti-systems within the meta-systemic field.
The partial systems and anti-systems either cancel or annihilate or both.
The partial systems and anti-systems are created by a creation operator out of the
meta-systemic field.
The partial systems and anti-systems embody desiring machines.
The partial systems and anti-systems as desiring machines combine to create
systemic individuals (restricted economies) that have emergent global
1272
properties greater than the sum of their parts.

The individuals have explicit social relations in an implicit social field.
The EMS has global operators taken from SGSs for annihilation, mutual action and
pattern formation.
The EMS has specific articulations following the pattern of the alternating division
algebras applying conjunction to produce dissipative, autopoietic and
reflexive systems.
They are described by Evolving Algebras.
They exist a swarm as a field of Cellular Games.
The field of Cellular Games exist within the Simulation of Environment and
Ecology (SEE).
Internally each magician is composed of swarms of magicians to an arbitrary depth.
The spacetime of the nodes in the SEE have an adjunct of three reserves related to
truth, reality and identity respectively.
Things are brought out of or taken back into the reserve through the use of Matrix
Logic operators along each of the dimensions of the Reserve extended by a
further self-reference truth value that augments each dimension generated
using the Greimas Square.
The reserves both exist and do not exist and embody the "no where" out of which
order spontaneously arises for free.
Each swarm of EMS components coevolve with each other and all other swarms in
their SEE nodes.
Emergences are simulated by populations from two isolated nodes encountering
each other.
Virtual SEEs may be simulated in the indefinite layers of meta-magicians and
virtual magicians within those virtual nodes may meet each other for the first
time in order to simulate emergences that occur internally rather than
externally.
o O o
Emergent Meta-Systems are an extension of the concept of Self-Generating

Systems developed by Goertzel in Chaotic Logic. SGSs are a dual to General
Systems Theory of George Klir. We take that dual and clarify and push it further. It
is an important discovery that General Systems Theory has a dual which points to
the existence of a General Meta-Systems Theory. Where systems defined by GST
are turing computable Component Systems of Kampis, Self-Generating Systems of
Goertzel and Emergent Meta-Systems are not. Instead these further types of
1273
Systems or Meta-systems are quantum computable. We show how EMS completely

embody the special systems which are the intermediary representations between
systems and meta-systems and thus well suited to be the basis for the transformation
between them. Where SGS can also be seen as SGMS, EMS embodies radical
discontinuity of spacetime while specifically embodying the structure of the
division alternating algebras instead of only the global operators in the meta-algebra
of SGS.
It is important to develop this theory of General Meta-systems Theory (GMST) as a

dual to GST as it completes the picture that has so long been only partial of how
systems interact with their meta-systemic shadows and how ultimately systems
interact with each other. Such a theory is by its very nature complex and supports
the interaction of a large number of different formalisms to constrain any simulation
of Artificial Intersubjectivity that might be developed based on the general theory.
This is because the project is similar to the construction of a higher dimensional
physical theory. There are so many ways to construct the likenesses of Meta-
Systems that without constraining the problem it would be impossible to decide
what form the simulation that embodied the theory should take. Much of the art is
combining the right sub-formalisms into an aesthetically pleasing combination
which generally shows how such a meta-systemic view can be supported and even
simulated. The concept is to develop a simulation with a social field built in from
the first as primal and out of which everything else arises as emergent properties.
This social field takes a radical view of what is sociality (the response to and
creation of emergence) and pushes the assumption of underlying discontinuity to
the limit. It allows us to claim to have developed an autopoietic sociology that
marries the concerns of social phenomenology with the concerns of computational
sociology. An autopoietic sociology builds models of social situations based on the
analogies with the alternating division algebras and brings out the ultra-efficient
qualities upon which such Reflexive special systems are based. Of course the
ultimate social ultra-effiency is Love. It is the existence of Love that gives our
individual existences the most meaning. We won't go so far as to claim that our
Emergent Meta-Systems swarms are "lov ins" but we will say that they exemplify
radical sociologically based thinking about the nature of autonomous computational
agents that do not form systems but instead form meta-systems which have as their
by product the emergent global properties of systems within the simulation.
[End of Working Paper as of 951115]
1274
2. Non-Duality
The backdrop for this study is a very fundamental change in the way we look at
existence. That change has to do with the shift from looking at the world
exclusively through a dualistic lens and instead showing the importance of
sometimes looking at existence though a different lens of non-duality. One of the
primary dualities that the Western Philosophical and Scientific tradition uses to split
existence is the very old and fundamental distinction between logos (mind) and
physus (body). The world is assumed to be pre-split along these lines. A dualism
reduces one side of the split to nothing while inflating the other side of the split into
everything. So for instance, we get the difference between materialism and idealism
which champions one side of the split over the other, in fact to the exclusion of the
other. This manifests itself in the split between academia and industry and within
academia between the sciences and the humanities and so on to create an extremely
intricate pattern of bifurcations between disciplines and subjects that are upheld by
traditions of scholarship.
There are very few non-dualistic theories about the world that have been proposed
and none have gained any wide-spread favor within our tradition. However, strange
as it may seem there are other traditions that are primarily non-dual in their
approach to the world such as the Traditional Chinese and the Traditional Islamic
Philosophical and Scientific Traditions. Many of these "Oriental" nondualistic
traditions have become very popular outside of academia and industry in the
netherworld of popular intellectual culture. In fact, we face what might be called a
crisis that the bulwarks of our own tradition have not come to terms with this other
way of looking at things and for the most part do not admit that these alternatives
exist. There is a great dissatisfaction with traditional Western models which is
finding little satisfaction within the intellectual trends of the current academic and
industrial climate. Yet subtly the change of allegiance of many people who have
been effected by alternatives is having its effects. And so slowly there are those
who are finding ways to bring non-dualistic modes of thinking, acting, and
perceiving into contact with the traditional dualistic modes that are mostly power
and control oriented. A good example of this is David Loy's study Nonduality
which relates the basic theme of non-duality within East Asian religions and
philosophies to traditional western philosophical sources. And we see several
attempts to construct non-dual philosophies or systems theories within different
branches of the humanities. An excellent example is John S. Hans' The Play Of The
World which reformulates the non-dualism of Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-oedipus
1275
into a more palatable form with less nihilistic overtones.
We are interested in Autopoietic theory developed by Maturana and Varela which

we believe is also a theory that bridges this same gap yet in a different way within
the context of the biological sciences. Varela himself has appealed to an Oriental
religion in a recent book called The Embodied Mind where he explains how that
theory is in sync with the kinds of ideas that are developed in Autopoietic Theory.
We believe that Acupuncture theory is a better example of a theory that embodies
non-dualisitic premises than the Buddhist wheel of dependent co-arising called
Samsara. However, both Buddhist and traditional Chinese non-dual theories were
developed in China over the course of at least a thousand years and these different
approaches to non-dualisitic thought, perception and action are all important for us
to study. Therefore in this essay I will begin with an example that I will provide
some commentary on taken from the Buddhist Hwa Yen tradition of Mahayana
Buddhism. We mentioned interpenetration in our preliminary sketch. Francis Cook
in The Jeweled Net Of Indra and C.C. Chang in The Buddhist Teaching Of Totality
both give ample background for this highly developed Mahayana Buddhist School
that flourished in China. For our part we will concentrate on the ten principles of
non-obstruction. These are traditional within the Hwa Yen school. We take our text
from The Buddhist Teaching Of Totality page 208-223 where Chang translates "On
The Meditation of Dharmadhatu by Master Tu Shun." This contains the following
statements of principle:
II. Mediation on the Non-Obstruction of Li (noumena) against Shih (phenomena).
"Ten principles are set forth here to elucidate both the fusion and dissolving of Li
and Shi, their co-existence and extinction, cooperation and conflict."
1. The principle that Li [must] embrace Shih.
2. The principle that Shih [must] embrace Li.
3. The production of Shih must rely on Li.
4. Through Shih the Li is illustrated.
5. Through Li the Shih is annulled.
6. The Shih can hide the Li.
7. The true Li is the Shih itself.
8. Things and events [shih fa] themselves are Li.
9. The true Li is not Shih.
10. Things and events [shih fa] are not Li.
1276
These ten principles follow a discussion on the interpenetrating relation between

Form and Voidness. These principles repeat this argument again with respect to the
Thatagata Gharba's non-obstructing functioning. "Ten principles are set forth here
to unite Shih and Li into one [inseparable whole]. Just as a large furnace can melt
all metals and transform them into shapes of various images, Li can also dissolve all
Shihs. The harmonious fusion of Li and Shih brings into the open a double non-
duality. All ten principles are set forth here are meant to elucidate this principle of
Non-obstruction..."
We will relate this to the Western Tradition in the following way. We tend to create
dualisms and then claim the primacy of the principle of Excluded Middle set forth
by Aristotle to keep those dualisms from collapsing into each other. However, it
was Merleau-Ponty in his ontology that discovered that underneath our dualisms are
a fundamental reversibility that makes them possible. That reversibility he called
the Chiasm. It is of some interest that the words Chiasm which means a point of
interchange that appears before separation (like the chiasm of the optic nerve) and
the word Chasm seem to have opposite meanings. The principle of Excluded
Middle establishes a Chasm between the dualistic pair that is unbridgeable and that
is used by the dominate one to keep the other under control. But once we recognize
the fact that within the Chasm beneath that maintained dichotomy the two duals
merge into each other and display a chiasmic reversibility not unlike that we find in
Relativity theory between the views of different observers. In fact, a good analogy
is the Mobius strip which is locally dual but globally one-sided and one edged. In
fact we might mention that the Penrose triangle that is the impossible figure used by
Escher in many of his prints is the dual of the mobius strip. The Penrose triangle is
locally intelligible but globally paradoxical. And to these two figures we can again
say that they are both examples of extreme positions of paradoxicality that we cite
because they are so aberrant in their nature, and that the truth must lie somewhere
between those extremes. So when we attempt to find that truth and reject the chasm
created by the principle of Excluded Middle that outlaws non-dual solutions then in
fact we need to understand ten principles in order make sense of this region of non-
dual reversibility. You will notice that as we progress the terms Shih (eventities)
and Li keep reversing. Each principle is true from its own point of view. They are
only apparently in conflict with each other and in fact if we can see past the
possibility of conflict we get a glimpse of the realm of non-obstruction that defines
interpenetration.
We will identify Li with what the Greeks call NOMOS which is the inner order that
1277
appears shrouded within the Logos and the Physus. We are surprised when
mathematics can be used to build precise models of physical phenomena. But this is
because within the Logos where mathematics is developed and within the Physus
where our physical theories get their inspiration there is a single nomos common to
both. Dualism subverts and obscures this single nomos. This Nomos is called in
Chinese Philosophy and Science the Li. It is the hidden order behind the way things
unfold in the Logos and the Physus. It is both an explicit order and an implicit order
to things that appears within things and on their surface. But the non-dual Li is more
than we might expect because it goes beyond the ordering of the Essence of the
thing that is associated with its Kindness. Instead it of thinking of Nomos as only
ordering things up to the point that the Kindness of the thing is determined and after
that everything else is random, the Li determines everything very specifically in the
individual as well as in the kind. So each individual has its own Li specific to it that
makes every aspect of the individual exactly what it turns out to be. The Chinese
have a different kind of opposition that they use to look at things in nature. That
opposition is not dualistic but distinguishes between Li and Chi. Chi is the energy
of things but not just gross energy, it includes subtle individual specific energies as
well. Li does not dominate Chi nor vice versa. But these are two different ways of
looking at the same thing. So in Acupuncture we would hear talk of Chi as the
energy behind the eventities. We need to be able to switch between thinking about
the order to the mobilization of the eventities that are ordered. Once the Chi flows
then what is left over is the patternings like the grain in the wood of a single specific
tree that has its own Li. But behind the scenes is an invisible Li that causes the Chi
to flow the way it does in this tree and in all trees similarly but different in each.
Thus Li is implicit order as a principle behind the scenes (noumena) and an explicit
order. Similarly Chi is a subtle energy that invisibly flows around things and a
visible gross energy of the kind that is conserved and that appears in Western
physics. In this text the opposite of Li, i.e. Chi, does not appear but we can think of
it as either an alternative for the Li as a basic principle OR as being bound within
the Shih eventity.
When the Li embraces the Shih we get the explicit ordering of the Shih by the Li.
Explicit ordering is what we see everywhere around us in the ordering of the Logos
and the Physus. It is the visible order of the world in all its aspects. Li (order)
appears everywhere in spite of the so called tyranny of entropy. In fact there is a
superabundance of Order that makes us doubt the veracity of the Second Law of
1278
Thermodynamics. However, what we find is that if we separate out some system

from the world that it will run down like a mechanical clock. Thus the
superabundance of Order has something to do with the fact that the whole
environment has reached some sort of supercritical state like that described by
Kauffman in AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE where he describes how we get order
for free that spontaneously appears out of no where. This appearance of order that
perhaps creates auto-catalytic systems and then eventually autopoietic systems
appears unmotivated from no obvious place to reach a supercritical order creating
regime so that any system that is not isolated may exhibit all sorts of order inducing
and neg-entropic behaviors. We learn from this that Meta-systems are always
spontaneously ordering and systems unplugged from meta-systems run down like
wound up toys. The source of the Li as apparent and explicit ordering comes from
the supercriticality of the Meta-systems.
When the Shih embraces the Li we get the implicit ordering of the Shih by the Li.
This is the opposite of the Li embracing the Shih. Here the principle of reversibility
has made us take the opposite stance from that just explored. When the Shih
embraces the Li the subtle aspects of the implicate order become revealed. The Li
does not force itself on the Shih. Rather it is a marriage where the lover and the
beloved exchange places continually. Thus the Shih can order itself according to the
deeper order of the Li much better than the Li can manifest that deeper order. There
much be an inner willingness of the Shih to follow the contours laid down by the Li
in order for the deeper implicit order to be seen.
We take our understanding of implicate order from David Bohem who coined that
term. The implicate order is the hidden order behind the obvious order. The order
that cannot be seen directly as when complementarity stop us from seeing exactly
what is happening in the quantum sphere. Or when we are prevented from seeing
simultaneous events in Relativity. Or when we are prevented from knowing both
the initial conditions completely and the entire phase space of the system under
investigation as in Ilya Prigogine's formulation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics as a complementarity. All these complementarities arise in the
meta-system that is the shadow of the system and anti-system duals. That
complementarity was explained best by Bohr with his anti-epistemology which said
we will never know what is beyond these complementarities, all we have is the
complementarities themselves and what is beyond is hidden from us absolutely. We
1279
complement the anti-epistemolgy of Bohr with an anti-ontology which says that

there is no Being but only the Void identified by the Taoists or the Emptiness
identified by the Buddhists such as Master Tu Shun.
The Meta-system's complementarities are the entry to the void. But this does not
mean that there is nothing hidden behind the complementarities. What is hidden is
the implicit order of the Li. Thus there is a hidden implicate order but no hidden
variables. So although Bohem's model was wrong, in as much as it posited an
epistemology beyond the complementarity, his insight was correct. There is an
implicate order that emerges from the void through the subtle clinging of the Shih to
the Li which is the opposite of the clinging of the Li to the Shih. The Shih can
manifest this implicate order by following the Li beyond the Li's instructions to
reveal the deep inner core of the Li that the Li cannot reveal by itself.
And this is exactly what this essay will attempt to get at. Because we can model
explicit orders but we have great difficulty modeling implicit orders. We can easily
see gestalts but we have great difficulties seeing the Proto-gestalts that order the
gestalts. But we know they exist because we see the gestalts change discontinuously
over time. We know these changes where something radically new appears are the
manifestation of the implicate order beyond the explicit order of the gestalt.
Implicate orders appear as discontinuities where as explicit orders appear as
continuous patterns. Reading the lines of discontinuity between the gestalts is a far
more subtle art. And we study that art when we give up on causality and accept that
the Shih follows the Li of its own accord rather than being fully ordered. We lose
that subtle nuance when we impose dualisms on the world and only recognize
power and control rather than the subtle feelings that arise in marriage where there
is a mutual arising and a mutual following that shows us the true origin of the
autopoietic reflexive formations within creation.
The eventities themselves cannot arise without the Li. The Li governs there genetic
development. Li is not a static patterning principle but instead has an inner
dynamism. We see this in the temporal gestalt. Gestalts are not just spatial and
visual but also temporal and auditory. And the auditory gestalts are interpenetrating
sounds as Statler says in LOVE AND EXISTENCE. The auditory is the better
model of the Social whereas the visual models and gestalts tend to isolate us as
individuals through the imposition of perspective within our culture. So the gestalt
1280
we are discussing is a temporal gestalt, not just a Being but also a Becoming.
Prigogine makes the point that becoming through intrinsic reversibility is the realm
of thermodynamics while dynamics with its reversible laws and lack of temporality
is the realm of Being. In modern metaphysics it is realized that there is not two
different things Being and Becoming: ontos and physus are roots that go back into
the Indo-european heritage that gives the original differentiation of being into
persistence and development. Instead there is a single Conceptual Being that is
fragmented into different kinds. Two of these kinds are Pure Presence Being and
Process Being. This means that actually no matter how we try to separate them by
developing different sciences that Dynamics and Thermodynamics are two views of
the same underlying structure projected onto the void of existence. The two are not
separate but instead only two sub-kinds from the same ultimate category that is
higher than any other concept and is projected on everything that there IS. Process
Being as Prigogine notes gives rise to internal consciousness and the process which
exhibit irreversible development, as in genetic development. Pure Presence exists
only at the NOW and is the what exists at the infinitesimal moment of the Present. It
is what is purely and completely available as Present Now. A temporal gestalt takes
into account the passage of from the future to the past and also out of no where into
the present and back out again. The temporal gestalts projects what William James
called the Specious Present which is a temporal duration. G.H. Mead says that this
duration is the amount of time it takes for something to be what it is. Henri Bergson
called this private time of the system "duree" and Husserl identified it with internal
time consciousness in his phenomenology. Now we know through cronobiology
that such internal time exists in different animals which sees time running past in
different internal speeds that are not necessarily fully tied to the objective speed of
events as seen by an external ideal observer. The inability of observers to detect
simultaneity is in some sense our inability to see inside each other's internal time
consciousnesses. We must rely on external signals. This does not mean that internal
time does not exist as physicists would have it but means that our internal
introspective worlds are hidden from each other closed to direct inspection, and that
is because each organism is an autopoietic closed system and because the observers
cannot be separated from what they are observing. Shih relies on Li means that
eventities have their own internal time by which they harmonize with implicit
ordering of the Li. This is the opposite of the production of the external times by the
Li. It is the Shih that produces the subtle manifestation of the implicate order by
following the internal times given by irreversible processes that are set up by the Li.
1281
The shih are examples, analogies, and collages that exemplify the Li. The Li as
pure order does not appear anywhere. Only things that are ordered appear. When we
look at these patterns we are looking at the external ordering of the Shih by the Li.
Internal times of the individual Shih are hidden and we only see the outward
patterning. Each illustration is a gestalt. We perceive this gestalt and though it
understand the order. Order is not just seen in the noema but also in the noesis.
There is an ordering to actions that create the patterning of things. Thus in each of
our ultra-efficient horizons of consciousness we perceive some aspect of the
underlying order or nomos of everything. This is why we need to chose non-dual
words that are both verbs and nouns to describe ordering. Patterns are Patterned.
Forms are Formed. Shapes are shaped. These words that are both nouns and verbs
show us the realm of things in which the thing acted upon is the same as the action
acting upon it. Autopoietic systems inhabit this realm. Autopoietic systems are
former and formed at the same time. They are patterner and patterned at the same
time. They are shapers and shaped at the same time. This is the meaning of self-
production which creates organization within a structural configuration by self-
imposing an order. When we say take responsibility for ourselves we are saying
become autopoietic in organizing our own actions, shape your self, and we take this
as one aspect of maturity. For although we are naturally autopoietic as a form our
behavior is not necessarily autopoietic. This taking on of the Li and illustrating it is
how the Shih realizes itself.
The Shih is like a servant. The servant is eclipsed by the master. But this is not the
outward eclipse of the Shih by the Li that dualism would create. Instead this is
willing servitude. The Shih by following the Li completely, both inwardly and
outwardly illustrates the Li so well that when we look at it we only really see the Li
in every aspect of the Shih. This willing servitude is based on the fact that the Li
does not overstep its bounds. It orders but then leaves the full implementation of its
orders to its servants so that the servants love their master. This is well illustrated in
the Tao Te Ching and the ideal of non-action. The great ruler rules by doing nothing
and so the citizens do everything they should and think that it was all their idea. No
action of the Li is how the Shih come to be totally obliterated in the ordering of the
Li. Because after taking on the outer order and then voluntarily taking on the inner
order there is nothing else, and the shih are completely effaced in the Li but without
being dominated and destroyed because it is as if the Li did nothing.
1282
Similarly the structural components of the autopoietic system become annulled in

the organization of that system. They need to be there but each is replaceable and
their structure is taken up and becomes subservient to the emergent order of the
autopoietic system itself. So we see the organization and the structures are actually
dispensable. Build right into Varela and Maturana's concept of the difference
between structure and organization within the autopoietic system is the concept of
the annulment or effacement of the Shih by the Li.
The Shih when it is fully effaced in the Li actually looks as it is in control and so
hides the Li. In the autopoietic system this hiding is the closure of the system. The
closure is what prevents us from direct inspection of internal time. The structures of
the system are so organized that the Li is brought to the surface everywhere but we
really only see the Shih. We do not actually see Li, Li is buried within the system
and hidden from view in the very act of manifesting the Li fully. Why is this?
Because there is an implicit and explicit pattern. We see the explicit pattern in the
actions of the autopoietic system but we do not see what is going on inside even
though in those inside actions the system is fully following the Li. So although the
system is fully manifesting the Li in its internal and external actions we only see the
external action so the implicit part of the Li is hidden. All we see are eventities and
the actual order appears nowhere even though it's results appear everywhere.
When the Shih fully manifests both the intrinsic order and the extrinsic order then
there is no difference between the Shih and Li. So in reality the Li is the Shih and
the Shih is the Li. This ultimate reversibility between them is the substance of the
next two principles. There is a level on which the Real Li is the Shih, in other words
the hidden is manifest everywhere and is merely the appearances. This is a very
interesting statement because it means that things in the world are ultimately
transparent. There is always some way to see inside everything even the autopoietic
system is transparent from a certain perspective. It is transparent in that it is wholly
embodying the Li, so that what we see is exactly what we get. The autopoietic
system is itself a manifestation. The fact that it can exist means that the whole of the
Li can be seen in it as an illustration of the Li itself. Thus when systems become
autopoietic their structural organization is the truth of the Li made manifest for all
to see. The autopoietic system's structural organization is the reality of the Li. There
1283
is nothing to the Li beyond intrinsic and extrinsic ordering. When that ordering is
manifest both in intersubjective time and internal time then there is nothing else to
show of the Li and we have seen the true Li in the Shih.
Now we reverse again following the play of the chiasm and we state the opposite of
the last principle which is that the true shih are the Li only. In other words the Shih
have no existence or value other than embodying the Li. The true Shih is only in the
Li. This is brought out by the statement of <???> in KNOWLEDGE PAINFULLY
ACQUIRED that the fundamental rule of existence is the following: One Li;
Myriad manifestations in variety. The whole purpose of the Li is the out pouring of
variety. The Li is the means by which this outpouring occurs in existence. All the
variety not just of kinds but of articulations of individual states of affairs in
individuals are a manifestation of the Li. So the Li unifies everything THROUGH
the myriad manifestations that flow from its source. But the only purpose of that
source is to make the myriad things come into existence. There is nothing beyond
that in the Li. So when we look at the myriad things unfolding and infolding out of
and into the void then we know the Li completely. There is also nothing to the
things other than the Li. So once we have seen the myriad things in all their variety
then we have known the Li completely by knowing the things completely in all their
copious splendor and cornucopia of variety.
But then we return to the statement that although in one sense the Li is the Shih and
vice versa. There is still another sense in which they are separate and
distinguishable. Because not everything taken separately is autopoietic. Because we
cannot see all the variety at once or in its full panoply. We are finite observers of a
bounty beyond our kenning. So we see the eventities and search for the Li that
underlies the overflowing bounty that issues from the void. Notice that the Li is not
beyond the void. It is in the ordering of all things that comes from the void. It is
hidden within the things just as they are. Not as a deception but by the very fact that
they flower and we perceive that flowering and only later do we consider the order
that appeared in that unfolding.
1284
Similarly we must reverse our stance and say that the Eventities are no more the Li
than the Li was the eventities. We know that the things ordered are not the order
themselves because it is clear that the order is spontaneous and comes out of
nowhere. It is unexpected and definitely against the rules if one of those rules is the
second law of thermodynamics formulated as an absolute. When systems run down
that is only because they are artificially unplugged from the global economy of the
Meta-system. The meta-system and its complementarity is the doorway to the void
which we see clearly when we affirm anti-epistemology and anti-ontology. When a
system is plugged into the meta-system then there is unending order appearing from
nowhere. But if we artificially create an artificially restricted economy then in
isolation this system runs down as the source of order is suppressed. When we
create that artificial restricted economy we see a gestalt we have isolated from the
background of all the possible gestalts. We have turned somethings into background
and other things into figures and that suppresses all the things that could vie to be
part of the foreground. In the meta-system there is no selection possible. It is what
Deleuze and Guattari call a rhizome, all middle and no beginning or ends, all
networks and no trees. We create trees by picking up a particular node and making
it the figure so that it becomes the root of a tree in the network. Any node could be
that. The things and events (eventities) in the networks are not the same as the
explicit and implicit orderings of that network. The trees are the explicit orderings.
But the network itself as parts floating in the field of the meta-system, as a rhizome,
has an implicate order that only shows up in the manifestation of all its
discontinuities. The network is a montage, collage, mosaic, swarm that has an inner
ordering not seen in the things and their relationships but seen better in its
articulation as a fourfold.
A fourfold if we take Spencer-Brown's LAWS OF FORM as a departure is made

up of the aspects of the FORM that enter into his Laws. The laws are a Nomos of
Form. But behind the Nomos is the Li that differentiates the four aspects:
Something, Nothing, Levels and Multiplicity. These are used to define the laws:
Multilicity = something
Leveling = nothing
The opposite of these are the superficial laws of Pattern rejected by Spencer-Brown
Multiplicity = nothing
Leveling = something
1285
These two sets of Laws are the complete ordering. Spencer-Brown selected one and
rejected the other setting up a dualism. The dualistic version he selected modeled
transcendence. The version he rejected models immanent pattern rather than form.
Form and pattern form a chiasm and together define the dissipative system.
Spencer-Brown selected the part of the dissipative system that is disordering the
environment and expanding impressing its order on that of the environment. He
rejected the formulation which shows that patterns come in from nowhere through
the singularity to order the dissipative system from within. But either of these sets
of laws are just part of the story. The whole story is identified with the Li than
makes Pattern and Form a chiasm and gives rise through them to the Dissipative
special system.
The swarm, mosaic, constellation, network, or what ever we call the parts of the
meta-system strung out in the field in the shadow of the deconstructed system and
anti-system we must agree that those nodes are somethings and they exist in slots of
layering and multiplicity. The positive aspect of this are the hierarchies where
layering dominates and in the network where multiplicity dominates. But also we
know that there are layerings of nothing and multiplicities of nothing that form as
meta-levels above the swarm. These layerings and multiplicies correspond to
ramified logical types as defined by I. Copi in Logical Type Theory that is derived
from Russell's theory of Meta-levels. Each of these meta-slots hovers in layers over
the swarm as the way that it avoids paradox. When they collapse into the swarm
then you have a Hyperlist which is an extension of Aczel's Non-well-founded Sets.
But the point is that the swarm is full of slots either made out of something or
nothing and it is filled with things or no-things. This definition of the swarm itself
within the fourfold is more basic than the relations between the things or the actions
of the things that come to be considered more readily than the fourfold that defines
the swarm.
In our development we want to define the things in the swarm as Emergent Meta-
System components. We identify the fourfold in which they are embedded with the
Alternating Division Algebras and then we give them the operations of the
Magician SGS meta-algebra. Thus each of the elements trapped in the fourfold can
create, annihilate, mutually act, and produce as well as recognize gestalt pattern
formations. And also the swarm itself can do these operations on the elements of the
swarm. One direction we get individual action and the other direction we get
collective action. Every thing or EMS component is itself a swarm, which in turn
have component swarms to an indefinite depth of nesting. But we can cut off this
1286
manifestation by placing the swarm in an environment within a network. In other

words as soon as we define the swarm thorough relations between nodes then we
have set a limit to the expansion of the Hyperlist. For convenience we do this by
embedding the swarm in the SEE defined by Goertzel.
But within the swarm we consider that because it is a social milieu that the EMS
components will play games with each other. We follow Hans in his definition of
play as the basic activity that explores a non-human plasticity in a given
environment. So by this we achieve non-duality because we assume that all things
can play and that it is a universal action complex that can be articulated into games.
So the sociality we are defining is not just a human sociality but an intrinsic
socialitiy that can be seen in all things. This is similar to the definition of desiring
machines given by Deleuze and Guattari in which human functions are not
distinguished from non-human functions. Anything that works can be considered as
a desiring machine and these working parts can be glued together like the elements
of Kampis's component system. We have moved up a level and said that because
sociality is intrinsic and because play is a universal action complex by which
eventities explore possibilities then we will define games that will define different
games each level of our virtual machine. The virtual machine itself will be
considered as an algebra in which each eventity has certain operations. Relations
will be considered as signatures of functions. So relations will only exist as
messages that are sent between agents in the swarm and there will be no reifiying
relations between things but only various directed mappings where the mappings
can continually change. We will use the Evolving Algebra notation of Yuri
Gurevitch as our way of treating the somethings of the swarm. This will allow the
operations to be changed at will as the swarm develops over time. New things can
be brought in from the Reserves and the actual functions can be changed on the fly
to give our swarm the ability to evolve.
Because the swarm lives in a fourfold it is already intrinsically a model of

interpenetration. Fourfolds segments mirror each other. The terminology of the
fourfold is due to the Late Heidegger who identified the segments with Heaven,
Earth, Immortals and Mortals. Within the fourfold that unfolds and splinters
according to the Cayley-Dickson process earlier incarnations of the fourfold unfold
to create later incarnations as the fourfold fragments. The mirroring is build into the
structure of the Cayley-Dickson unfolding. That unfolding displays a conjunction of
mirroring elements. When that fourfold reaches the Sedenion (16nion) level then
the algebraic structure is a pure network and linearity breaks down so we see the
1287
network as an infinite mirroring of quaternions and a model of interpenetration.
Our case it that this structure is non-dual intrinsically and so exemplifies all the
principles explained above relating the Li and the Shih. It does this because it is the
very model of an dissipative autopoietic reflexive special system. No other
formation can come so close to non-duality because no other structure embodies
interpenetration in the upper reaches of its architecture in the same way. As the
system fragments it runs right into interpenetration which is what occurs when you
put hyperlists into a network. In fact that is the meaning of the loss of the
Alternating Division properties of the hypercomplex algebras. The system can no
longer make divisions within itself stick and so it merges into one thing. It is
divided by losing non-linearity and illusory continuity vanishes as time become
circular. This circularity of time and the impossibility of making divisions within
itself allows the network to interpenetrate and become Holoidal. The loss of
division destroys the illusory continuity which allows part of the network to hold
aloof from the rest. The figure collapses into the ground and the whole thing merely
continues to differentiate into the indefinite depths of long term memory as the
short them memory of the meta-system that allows it to create systems within it are
lost. Short term memory means restriction. The meta-system can no longer create
restricted economies except as local fluctuations so the mirroring of the hyperlists
takes over as the fundamental motif.
When we look at these principles again we see that they embody non-duality. First
they explicitly embody reversibility as each pair reverse each other. As we work
through the reversals we encounter deeper and deeper layers of meaning in the
relations between Shih and Li. Second the revering principles can be see as
representing phases on either side of the reversibility at the center of the chiasmic
1288
interval between the possible dualistic positions that would occur if we seized onto
one principle and raised it above the others. The principles form a swarm or mosaic
that continuously encounter each other from different angles to shed light on each
other continually. Yet still there is a definite chasm between the two principles of
each pair that give us an antimony.
We notice that the pairs of opposite principles stand next to each other in
conjunction. And with this we realize that the principles themselves may somehow
be expressing the form of the fourfold. In the alternating division algebras it is
conjunction that allows them to achieve perfect balance which places them exactly
between the surplus of systems and the lack of meta-systems. It is the conjunction
of numbers that allows them to produce perfectly balanced forms which also have a
critical broken symmetry. Symmetry and balance are themselves in some meta-
balance in the Alternating Division Algebras. So let us look closer at the metonymy
of the principles and see if we can understand this linguistic model of the fourfold.
Certainly the reversal of the principles implies that they mirror each other. But here
we have five mirrors. Those mirrors express mutual-embracing, mutual-elucidation,
mutual-effacement, and then two that are related which is mutual-identity, and
mutual-difference. If we appeal to Heidegger's concept of the Same as belonging
together which is neither absolutely identical nor absolutely different, then we can
perhaps see the last two principles as expressing mutual-Sameness. This then gives
us four mirrors:
Mutual-sameness
In other words Shih and Li are both identical in reality and different in unreality.
They are neither completely identical nor completely different. We can say with
Heidegger that they belong together in their duality and complementarity. We see
this in all the complementary opposites that arise from the meta-system. The system
and anti-system are always opposite each other as duals in every respect. But many
times as in the case with Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry the two duals when
studied together produce a greater whole and we realize that they are two facets of
some deeper thing, in this example a deeper viewpoint on the nature of geometry.
What ever issues from the void as complementary opposites has this aspect deep
duality that renders the system and the anti-system a necessary relation of mutual-
dependence.
But when we talk of system and anti-system it is different from Li and Shih
1289
because both the system and anti-system are Shih. The Li is the inner and outer
ordering that produces the complementarity. But even this relation between order
and ordered has a similar belonging together that becomes apparent in the relations
between the antimonies.
Mutual-embracing
After the system and the anti-system arise as complementary duals then we see that
they mutually embrace each other. This mutual embrace allows each to be what it is
through the other. It is like a marriage of male and female which are complementary
duals in the same way. Each has it strengths and weaknesses made up for by the
other and through conjunction they operate in a way that neither could alone.
When we talk of Shih and Li we see that this mutual embracing takes a different
form between the order and the ordered. It takes the form of extrinsic and intrinsic
ordering. The extrinsic order comes from the Li embracing the Shih. This is the
ordering of kindness. But the intrinsic ordering that comes from the embrace of the
Li by the Shih that is more subtle and deeper can only be seen in their reverse
mirroring. The system and the anti-system indicate and voluntarily follow the
deeper ordering that is intrinsic. This dynamic indicating is like a compass that
continually points to the intrinsic ordering of the Li. Because the gestalt experiences
emergent events this pointing must continually change in order to continue pointing
toward the Same. This distinction between the two embracings is like Nietzsche's
concept of the difference between will to power and eternal return of the same.
Extrinsic order is like the will to power and intrinsic order is like eternal return of
the same.
Mutual-elucidation
If we have only the system or the anti-system we have incomplete knowledge.

Likewise if we only have the dual systems and not the meta-systemic field of partial
systems that make up the system and anti-system then again we only have
incomplete knowledge. Complete knowledge can only occur when we can move
back and forth between the system and anti-system comparing them. And likewise
that we can move back and forth between the duals and the meta-systemic shadow
they cast over the landscape. The different mappings of that landscape is a crucial
piece of foundational epistimic knowledge that grounds our understanding of the
dual systems. This is because when we change the mapping of the meta-systemic
1290
landscape we intrinsically change the relation between the system and the anti-
system. Bateson talks about this effect in MIND AND NATURE. He says that the
information we get by studying two different subjects at the same time is always
better than what we would get if we studied them separately. This is why
specialization is such a handicap imposed on students in our academic system.
Specialization cuts out the ultra-efficiency that occurs when we conjunct subjects
under study. Systems and Anti-systems are examples where this increase of
information efficiency occurs, and it is boosted again when we combine the study
of these with the opposite meta-system. There are dual meta-systems in a domain
and dual domains in a world, do this effect scales up as we rise upon the emergent
ontological hierarchy.
When we talk about Li and Shih instead of just the shih of systems and anti-
systems or meta-systems then we are discussing the mutual elucidation of the Order
and the Eventities. We see the order within the eventities and we see the eventities
in the order. Since they are opposites not duals they completely exhaust each other
so that there is no shih beyond the manifestation of the myriad varieties so when we
see the myriad varieties produced by the Li we have seen all the Li and similarly
when we have seen both the intrinsic and extrinsic Order we have seen all the
possibilities of the Shih. When we look into the varieties we see the production of
the shih and we see in those varieties the illustration if the Li. Notice that just like in
the belonging together in Sameness there is a slight difference between how this
relation manifests from each side. This slight difference produces a little distortion
that is the key to the understanding of the fourfold. There is a little interference
between the two reversible perspectives and this renders them slightly different and
spoils their absolute identity. Shih do not produce the Li and Li do not illustrate the
Shih. There is instead a transforming distortion within the reversibility that makes it
so that each brings out the best in the other. This is similar to Heidegger's concept of
Earth. The work of art is between Heaven and Earth. It needs to stand in the light of
the heavens so it can be seen but it subsists of polished earth whose natural qualities
are brought out for everyone to see clearly. This bringing out of the specific
qualities of the materials in the work of art gives something that can shine in the
clearing of Being and it brings out the best in the possibilities that the Earth of the
materials have to offer. Thus there is this mutual elucidation where each brings out
the best in the other.
Mutual-effacing
1291
But the mutual elucidation is balanced by mutual effacement. In the case of

systems and anti-systems they either annihilate (physus) or cancel (logos) each
other. So they cannot really be seen together at the same time except as ideas. Either
we take one axiom or the opposite axiom. They are mutually exclusive so that we
do not get mixtures of Euclidean and non-euclidean geometries unless we create
some special construct like Rinemann geometry. Similarly if we are looking at the
system as a whole greater than the sum of the parts then the lacks of the meta-
system do not appear. Whereas if we concentrate on the lacks as deconstructionism
does then the surpluses do not appear. So we see that from a practical standpoint the
antimonies are exclusive of each other and the relation between the antimonies and
the landscape they appear within are also mutually exclusive as well unless we
deliberately create a hybrid.
Switching to the Li and Shih we notice that Order and Eventities are also mutually
effacing. But again there is a distortion between these as the Shih are annulled and
the Li is hidden. So the Shih vanish when we look at the Li whereas the Li merely is
hidden behind the Shih. We see this above where we saw that the different aspects
of the Shih seen as system, anti-system and meta-system vanish due to mutual
exclusion. The mutual exclusion is the annulment of the Shih. It is the Li that
imposes this mutual exclusion as a condition of existence. Similarly when we are
concentrating on one of the expressions of the Shih then we do not see the mutual
exclusion and that is hidden by the very fact we are concentrating on one aspect and
not moving between aspects. So the difference between annulment and hiding is a
distortion that keeps these two reversible principles from being identical yet
through them we see the great similarity in the actions of both of them. We can
think of the ordinary situation where art does not prevail and we lose our aesthetic
sense. Following the argument of Heidegger in "The Origin of the Work of Art."
When art does not prevail then the Earth of the materials are never shined and the
spot in the clearing of Being is never prepared. So in ordinary relations to objects
we see a dual effacement. There is an annulment of the Earth aspect of the thing
because they are not brought out to be seen, and their is a hiding of the Heaven
aspect because there is no focus on a specific aesthetic thing. So the Li of Heaven is
hidden and the Shih of Earth are annulled where we take annulment to be as if they
have never been, utterly lost. The qualities of the things are utterly lost if we do not
polish them. The qualities of the space in which the things are highlighted is hidden
because it is taken over for other purposes.
Now we have noticed that mutual-sameness and mutual-embracing are opposite
1292
effects and mutual-elucidation and mutual-effacing are mutual effects. These

belong together with each other. We can call the first two the establishing of
distinctions and the second two the mirroring. And we note again that these two
establishments belong together and mirror each other. They are in fact one and that
oneness is a very deep unique single source of everything that manifests and that is
hidden. Ultimately there is one fourfold but it unfolds by a series of bifurcations.
The first bifurcation establishes the difference between distinctions and mirroring.
The second bifurcation establishes the mutuality of sameness, embracing,
elucidation, and effacing. The third bifurcation establishes the principles which are
a broken symmetry because four principles provide the mutualness of sameness and
two principles each provide the reversibility of each of the other three mutualnesses.
So when we look at unfolding of the principles we see that there is a cascade:
Figure 283:
oneness 1
establishment 2
mutuality 4
principles (2+2+2)+4
identity and difference 2+2+2+(2+2)
It is of interest that String theory would give us a universe that contains ten
dimensions which are split into the four of spacetime and six conpactified
dimensions. There is a final step of the unfolding of identity and difference out of
Sameness. We might guess that this could be seen as reality and unreality from
some other perspective or truth and untruth from some other equally valid
perspective.
Now when we look at this cascade we can see that it is similar to that of the
division algebras. We can think of it as a series of conjunctions and infoldings of
our ten principles. The initial distinction of establishment might be like the
distinction between imaginary and real numbers. Then these might divide again by
the provision of a second mirroring into the quaternion algebra which then would
unfold into the algebra of the octonions through a third mirroring. At the level of the
second mirroring mutuality appears and in the quaternion that exists in term of the
Hyperlist structure based on mediated Non-Well-Founded Sets. In the third level of
mirroring the reversibilities that embody these mutualities appear and manifest the
distortions we found in some of those mutualities. Also at this point there is also the
broken symmetry of the further break out of identity and difference from sameness.
At the level of the octonion there is a double mirroring that is added instead of a
1293
single mirroring because the octonion is equal to an inwardly mirrored tetrahedron.

Similarly at the quaternion level there is also a double mirroring because the
quaternion is the same as three mirrors facing each other instead of two mirrors.
This doubling comes from the fact that a mirroring intersects a mirroring at each
state. The first mirroring that establishes is crossed by the second mirror that gives
mutuality. The crossing of mirrors causes the crossed mirror to bifurcate, a similar
thing happens when the third level of mirroring is added onto the top of the crossed
mirror. It causes the added mirror to bifurcate. So the Fourfold ends up being a
progressive bisection. But at each level there is a broken symmetry. Between the
reals and the imaginaries there is a broken symmetry that favors the reals. In
quantum experiments the non-locality of the imaginaries vanishes to yield real
values. Similarly at the octonion level there are the three imaginaries of the Hyper-
list that are set off from the reals as the single imaginary breaks apart into a
threefold structure. This Hyperlist structure is holoidal and holonic. It is the mirror
within which interpenetration is seen as it gives us a mirrored ball whose parts are
wholes. But this holonic inwardness is still balanced against the real but the
emphasis has shifted to favor the imaginary over the real. Then with the next
unfolding we see the full panoply of reversiblities that inhabit the Greimas square
unfold. At the octonion level there is an internal anti-greimas square within the field
that holds the seven quaternions. Asymmetries and symmetries abound and
interfere with each other. We find intertwining mobius strips in the representations
of the octonion. All the reversibilities with the inherent distortions and identity
within difference and difference in identity give us a complex and dynamic
interference pattern that takes on many shapes from different angles.
I believe that we can also see the final spliting of Sameness into the four principles
of identity and difference is a hint of the further splitting of the octonion by the
Cayley-Dickson process into the Sedenion level. There are fifteen octonions at this
level and we lose the Alternating and Division property at this point. This means
that the timestreams become bifurcated for the first time instead of just splitting
from each other. Circular time appears. And strangely enough by losing the division
property the network of the swarm ceases to be able to divide itself against itself
and so it becomes interpenetrating and self-mirroring only from this point forward
in the Cayley-Dickson unfolding process. Interpenetration is the result. And
interpenetration is precisely about the Sameness and belonging together of all
things. The spliting of sameness into identity and difference marks the transition
into interpenetration. Also at the Sedenion level the three ultra-efficient worlds that
cohere like the quaternion only instead we are inside them instead of locked out of
1294
them. So it is at this point that we can live inside a world with social flow that is
interpenetrating and we can contrast this world with the twelve other worlds that are
all flawed in some way and less efficient. So at the sedenion level there is the
possibility to entering into a holoidal structure that embodies interpenetration
completely and that is seen in contrast with the other flawed worlds. In this we can
see the difference between enlightenment that knows about the interpenetration of
the network and the ignorance that lives within interpenetration without
experiencing it. So the sedenion level is important from the point of view of the
experiential realization of the meaning of interpenetration as opposed to the
ignorance of it which is central to the Buddhist teaching. The mathematical
structures that appear in the Alternating Division algebras support the Buddhist
position that we are all enlightened but just do not realize it due to the illusions we
have. The infinitely deep Pascal's triangle is made up of quaternions that all reflect
each other and interpenetrate with each other as they unfold through the Cayley-
Dickson process that generates the progressively bifurcating fourfold. But at the cap
stone of the triangle we have the illusion of continuity rather than circular time. And
in that illusion grows up the holoidal form of the Hyperlist quaternion structure. But
we are outside it. when that turns into an octonion then we experience the play of
reflection around the closed space of the cap stone. Here we reach a limit in which
the reflections rebound around a trapped space creating interfering illusions. At the
next stage a tetrahedron of imaginaries are created that link the worlds that are
separated from each other as three of them are irrevocably joined into a quaternion
structure. If you are within that quaternion structure of interpenetrating world then
that would be the same as experiencing enlightenment and knowing the
interpenetration by embodying it. But if you are withing the twelve segmented
worlds then you would not know the reality of interpenetration even though you
lived within it. It is amazing that the Alternating Division algebras have such a fine
and subtle structure that parallels the insights of Buddhism so clearly. And although
the structure of the principles are not an exact fit to the mathematical structure the
fit is close enough that the major points of correspondence at least give us pause to
reflect on the subtlety of the Buddhist heuristic. What we see is that the
mathematical model and the logico-linguisitic models complement and help us
interpret each other. In fact we can say that they belong together as mutually
elucidating each other. When we are within the mathematical the linguistic is
hidden from us and when we are in the linguistic the mathematical is hidden from
us. What we hope to do is to realize the mutual embrace of the logico-linguistic and
mathematical in order to fully
1295
understand the inner coherence of these two different models of interpenetration

and the production of illusion that creates our world. Hopefully in that the relation
between Shih and Li will shine through and the way they inform these models will
become clear.
Now we return to look at how these principles lead us to look at the dissipative
autopoietic reflexive special systems.
At the dissipative level the Shih is what is being patterned and the Li is the order
that flows into the system from no where.
At the autopoietic level the Shih is the Structure and the Li is seen in the
organization that is self-imposed.
At the reflexive level the Shih is the way the dissipative systems are organized into
virtual autopoietic and virtual reflexive systems. The Li is seen through the
distortions as the non-nihilistic distinctions that are seen through and inspite of the
distortions.
At each level the Shih is extrinsically ordered by the Li but there is also the subtle
ordering in which the Li continues to order the Shih by the Shih following the Li
beyond the extrinsic ordering to also display the implicate ordering.
At the dissipative level the implicate order is in the feedback that occurs between
the disordering of the environment and the appearance of order from the singularity.
This subtle feed back loop is gives the dissipative system it's peculiar form of non-
locality. It is like the crystallization of a Penrose tiling. There has to be some non-
local or global knowledge of the entire dissipative system that builds up such a
tiling in an actual crystal because the connections between fitted together
components cannot be direct but alternated like in the mediated inclusiveness of the
Hyperlist. This non-locality and quasi-globality is achieved in the dissipative
system though a feedback between the disordering of the environment and the
ordering of the system from nowhere through the singularity. The order and
disorder must be complementary duals of each other. This complementarity can set
up a system/anti-system type resonance so that the disorder controls the order and
1296
the order controls the disorder.
At the autopoietic level the implicate order is in the fact that a given pair of
dissipative systems makes up an autopoietic system and another pair makes up
another autopoietic system. These form a symbiotic relationship. But each of the
autopoietic systems can trade off dissipative systems with the other so that there are
actually six virtual autopoietic systems given four dissipative systems. This mutual
exchange between dissipative systems that give rise to multiple autopoietic virtual
systems is the implicate order behind the explicit order in which specific dissipative
systems are conjuncted in the embodied autopoietic pair. This means that the Li
organization of the Shih structures is complemented by other possible Li
organizations of the Shih structures. Those complementary possibilities form the
background or implicit order upon which the explicit manifest order is erected.
At the reflexive level the implicate order is seen in the further expanding of the
virtual background reflexive systems beyond the one that is embodied. This virtual
background creates an order related to the sedenion. So the sedenion is implicitly
present as the background of the reflexive system. The octonion produces
distortions that create endless similitudes that from chaotic structures of Sameness.
But these distortions make it possible to see the non-nihilistic distinctions that are
enfolded into the emptiness as the implicit structures that are invisible but do not
change within the changing world. So here the implicate order expands the range of
virtual possible relations behind the embodied reflexive system and at the same
time adds the rendering of invisible constraints visible through the play of
distortions as the Chaotic sameness of endlessly differing and deferring similitudes
are produced.
At the dissipative level ordered dissipative structures are created and the disordered
environmental structures are produced. Both of these as complementary opposites
are based on the invisible ordering principle. These complementary opposites
illustrate the Li as they come into existence out of no where to become a stable
regime.
At the autopoietic level we see the autopoietic system producing nodes of the
autopoietic network. Those nodes of the network are controlled by a hypercycle that
1297
is in no where in relation to the catalyzed reactions.
At the reflexive level propensities or tendencies in a situation are produced that

make up the social fabric. These propensities make it possible for the possibilities to
make contact with the probabilities to produce actualities. The actualities are the
illustration and the propensities embody the reliance. Without the propensities there
could be not real connection between possibility and probabilities. Nothing would
come into existence, less well emergences.
At the dissipative level we can see that the environmental ordering of shih is
eliminated in favor of a new order that comes form the dissipative system. The fact
that one order replaces the other hides the fact that there is an inner connection
between the replaced and the replacing orders. This inner connection is the
implicate order. The implicate order is hidden by the will to power of the dissipative
systems expansion of domination by replacing one order with another. But we see
the proto-gestalt appear again when we realize that there is a succession of
replacements and we wonder about the internal coherence of the series of gestalts.
At the autopoietic level there is the domination of organization over structure on

the one hand that annul the Shih of the structure. And there is the closure of the
autopoietic system that hides the internal time and the following of the implicate
order within the organism.
At the reflexive level there is the creation of the internal and external mirroring of
the quaternionic system within the octononic system. This mirroring of the social
and the psychological hides the internal principle that is the same behind both. We
ether look at one or the other. It is either the Society of Mind we concentrate upon
or it is the Social relations of autonomous individual organisms. But behind these
duals there is a single Li that is hidden. The shih that are annulled are the patterns
that are disturbed by imposed distortion that non-associativity brings. What is
important at this level are the production of endless similitudes of Sameness in
which the differences become blurred and lost between the individual elements
within the World of the octonion. This endless chaotic mixing creates what Goertzel
calls a multi-lobed strange attractor at the center of the octonion due to non-
associativeness. All the components lose their own patterns in this process of
1298
mixture.
At the dissipative level the circulation of the orders through the inversion process
back into the singularity and out to the environment gives us the identity between
the Li and the Shih. The Escher waterfall based on the Penrose triangle in which
separate coherent regions do not cohere globally but make possible a strange flow
that feeds itself as a single self-feeding irreversible process. The flow and the
ordering of that flow once achieved are the Same. That sameness flows from the
fact that there is also the mobius strip formation that makes the Shih and Li which
are locally different globally the same.
At the autopoietic level the system as self-producing embodies the paradoxicality

of the uncertainty principle between initial conditions and the phase space of the
entire system. As Prigogine says you cannot know both at the same time so you
either know one or the other. Initial conditions and reversible rules cannot be
known together in actuality. Thus the intersection between dynamics and
thermodynamics are embodied by the autopoietic system that encompasses the
paradoxicality of the uncertainty of entropy, the uncertainty of simultaniety, and the
uncertainty of measurement. The uncertainty of entropy has to do with the fact that
there is no global running down even though unplugged and isolated systems will
run down. The universe is not a system but a meta-system. Understanding that
would create a profound change in physics what is trying to build a universe as a
system and keeps running into the pluriverse meta-system. The uncertainty of
simultaneity brought out in Relativity Theory gives the autopoietic system its
closed nature. We cannot look inside and directly inspect internal clocks. The
uncertainty of measurement from quantum mechanics show up in the probability
distribution of the autopoietic systems behavior. That wave collapses when we
observe an actual behavior but nothing can give us the collapse before hand. All
these uncertainty principles come together in the autopoietic system's paradoxical
formulation. So in that way the Shih and the Li become one in the autopoietic
anomalous special system. The Li is the certainty that is hidden from us and the
Shih is the phenomena that we observe in our perpetual uncertainty. Since there is
no depth to the autopoietic system due to the inherent anti-epistemology and anti-
ontology what we see on the surface is the deep hidden truth. The truth is that you
cannot know what is inside the autopoietic system. The truth is that what you see is
1299
all you get.
At the reflexive level the invariants that appear through the distortions are the inner
truth of everything that is visible. The visible invariants are the reality of the
variations and the massive variety that pours out of the void. But on the other hand
all the myriad things in all their splendor and magnificence are a full showing of all
the order that there is. There is no hidden orders beyond the orders that inform all
the visible things. At least this might as well be the case as we have no access to any
orders beyond these anyway. So the reflexive system takes the paradoxicality of the
autopoietic system and turns it inside out. It says that comes out of tall the
autopoietic systems together is a full picture of the truth of the Li. So the
environmental milieu as it exists is out way to see all that is inside the organisms. It
is an external mirroring of what is within the closed organisms. So at the reflexive
level it is as if the autopoietic closed system has been turned inside out. The
behavior of the autopoietic systems taken separately is a probability wave that
collapses randomly. But the web of relations that they produce together is anything
but random. It is instead a finely tuned co-evolving structure in which all the
possible behaviors are played out until we see all the possible combinations
exhibited and pruned based on their fitness.
Ultimately the whole gambit of reversibilities between Shih and Li allow us to

differentiate them.
In the dissipative system the ordered regimes that appear at different temperatures
our in the presence of different concentrations of catalysts will be different and will
give us a view to a whole spectrum of possible orders that may occur in that
dissipative structure. What is ordered by those regimes are inert chemicals that
without the irreversible processes would seek their lowest energy and lose
information. But as long as the local economy is plugged into the global economy
the fission of kinds of work will continue and different economic periods of growth
and decline will occur. Thus we can follow the picture give by Jane Jacobs in The
Birth And Death Of Cities and see how it is the urban centers that generate the rural
economies that are plugged into the commerce between cities that make up the
global economy. Thus there is a difference between ordered contents and the
boundary in the dissipative system and this is played off against the chiams of form
1300
and pattern. The formal is the embodiment of the Li and the pattern is the
embodiment of the Shih and these though fused are always different within the
compass of their reversibility.
In the autopoietic system we see the difference between the organization and
structure of the system over and over again played against the chiasm between
cognitive and living functions. The cognitive is the embodiment of the Li and the
living is the embodiment of the Shih. The autopoietic system uses negative
feedback to weather the storm of the meta-system in which blackholes and miracles
abound. The homeostasis build by the hypercycle of negative feedback loops is
based on being able to recognize and maintain invariants within the system in
relation to the environmental fluxes. Without the difference between the cognitive
Li that recognizes the variances and the living processes that adjust to them there
would be no possibility of self-production.
At the reflexive level there is the difference between distortions and invariants
which gives an emphasis to the chiasm between the social and the psychological.
But at this level it is undecidable which is the Shih and which is the Li between
these two components that mirror each other. Instead we see the invariants that
appear within the void as Li and the distortions in the organization of the
autopoietic system as Shih. So at this level it seems that the difference between shih
and Li is no longer chiasmic. This may be why the series comes to an end at this
point. Suddenly we are oriented to what lies beyond the void and the emergent
eventities that appear from out of the void. These appear in the psychological realm
and are mirrored in the Social or they appear in the social and are mirrored in the
psychological. But either way the emergences that appear give us a glimpse of
another deeper proto-gestalt with implicate order that drives the series of
emergences that we must create or respond to. That ordering of emergences appears
to be the highest manifestation of Li and all the emergent eventities are the highest
manifestation of Shih. In other words the difference between the Shih and the Li are
inscribed in what the social and psychological mutual mirrorings see and react to. If
they did not have the emergences then everything would vanish and be unable to
manifest for the same reason that we cannot see something artificially held
stationary before the eye. Without erratic change nothing can be visible and it is the
emergences that drive erratic change. They are the random orthogonal fluctuations
that changes the map and give us new territory to explore. Suddenly the Li is not
within the system itself any more. But the system is turned inside out and has
become ecstatic projecting a world that is ever changing and renewing itself. That
1301
which renews is the Li and that which is renewed is the Shih. The internal
coherence of the renewals is the Li and the eventities that bring the Novum of the
renewal itself is the Shih.
Shih and Li emanate from the void and return to the void.
Ultimately there is only the void and the deep unity that lies beyond the void that is
neither Shih or Li. That deep unity is the single source of all causation.
[End of working paper as of 951204]
3. Ontological Prerequsites
Emergent Meta-Systems presuppose a nonduality such as that described in the last

section. In this section we will seek to build a bridge between Western Metaphysics
and the anti-epistemology and anti-ontology that flows from the non-dual approach.
This is to say that non-duality assumes that forms are empty. This kind of
assumption is alien to western metaphysical constructions that instead assume
Being as the ground of all things. However, we are driven to this alien position of
anti-epistemology and anti-ontology by our insistence on exploring Emergence as a
phenomena and attempting to model it under the rubric of EMS. This is because
Emergence as a phenomena within our tradition focuses us on the borderline
between form and no-form as this is the place from which genuine new things arise.
And so it is for this reason that emptiness and voidness enters into our conception.
As long as we avoid looking at genuine emergence we can avoid looking at the
void. But as soon as we enter into any deep exploration of emergence then we are
suddenly confronted with this alien landscape which like a Chinese painting shades
into the blank paper which appear as the substance of the clouds within the
representation.
It is fortunate that we are starting with Goertzel's concept of the Magician SGS as
the basis of our extension into Emergent Meta-systems because these meta-algebras
are in fact designed to capture exactly this point of emergence as explicitly as
possible. Goertzel has an interesting way of looking at the world which categorizes
it into four aspects:
The first aspect is what he calls the Inverse Meta which is what the Magician SGS
is meant to represent. It is the point of structuring of form at the edge of
formlessness. In may mystical texts this formation is called the Kosmic Atom. The
1302
Kosmic Atom is a source form which is embedded in the collective unconscious

that shows us the unfolding and infolding of forms out of the void. It appears in
Yates in his Vision as his Gyres. It is normally represented by two helixes one
inside the other where the twisting of the helixes form mobius strips. In the Kosmic
Atom the concept is that every atom of the universe and the universe as a whole has
the same form. So there is some concept of the fractal nature of existence. In
Goertzel's vision of the Inverse Meta he sees a set of spheres in which each sphere is
sucking in all the other spheres and then reconstituting spewing them back out
reconstituting the set from within each of the spheres acting in concert. After some
discussing of this vision of the Inverse Meta it was realized that this image of the
sphere could be represented by a tori that was involuting. The tori would be
involuting on one side and exvoluting on the other. It would be embedded in a
higher dimensional sphere as its equator. It turns out that in this model there is
something special about spheres of dimension two, four, and eight. That is these are
the only dimensions in which you can form regular tangent spaces smoothly, i.e.
these are the only dimensions where the tori can be joined without singularities
appearing. It turns out that this feature of higher dimensional spheres is equivalent
to the division algebras from which derive the special systems. Therefore, we can
say that starting from Goertzel's model of the inverse meta as involuting spheres or
tori we immediately get the fact that there are certain dimensions where the spheres
or tori fit together perfectly. That fittingness is the structure of the division algebras
that account for the resonance of multiple tori within a single meta-tori that can be
seen as a multiply connected surface. The Inverse Meta has a nature similar to the
Li discussed in the last section. It is the origin of order within the universe from a
space of higher logical type. Inverse Meta means the opposite of meta which are
higher logical types in Copi's scheme. In the higher logical type space there is a
pattern making mechanism in which the swarm of magician SGSs work together to
create each other in such a way that everything is taken in and reorganized and then
manifested again anew.
The next aspect of Goertzel's categorization of things is Randomness which is seen

as incomprehensible order such as that which arises in ultra-complex chaotic
systems. This principle is seen as the shaping-shaped that combines with the Inverse
Meta to produce the creativity of the world. In Chinese parlance this would be
similar to the Chi or in Buddhism to the Karmic wind. It is a dynamic principle
instead of an ordering principle.
Goertzel has a simple equation in which he says that Creativity = Order plus
1303
Randomness. Thus. the world is generated in all its variety, richness, and subtlety
through the interaction of these two principles. The primary realm we are talking
about is the mind and society. Goertzel is a cognitive psychologist so all of his
models represent the Mind and its operation. But he is one of those psychologists
that recognize that within the mind there is a social element something like
Minsky's Society Of The Mind. So the super-space above the higher logical type
space is the overlapping of social and psychological phenomena that appear within
the world. That phenomena is characterized by complex adaptive behavior driven
far from equilibrium and bordering on the edge of chaos. Goertzel describes multi-
lobed strange attractors that order the complex social or psychological phenomena.
In the Higher Logical Type space of the Inverse Meta and Randomness as
incomprehensible ordering dynamic that drives the phenomena that appears as
complex adaptive systems in our social and psychological world. Goertzel
developed the Magician SGSs as a model of the Inverse Meta embodying a strange
attractor through the interaction with Chaotic Random-Order. These powerful
principles together order the Shih of Social and Psychological eventities.
This kind of model is precisely where we would like to start in any attempt to
understand emergence. It points toward the void through the chiasm between the Li
and Chi and their formation of the chiasmicly social/psychological Shih. We an
characterize this in terms of what will be called the four different kinds of Being.
The different kinds of Being together are our means of coming to terms with non-
duality within our dualistic tradition. They have arisen in modern ontology as a
result of a phenomenological analysis of being-in-the-world by philosophers such
as Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Derrida and others from continental
philosophy. We will give a short introduction to the four kinds of Being by relating
them to Goertzel's categorical model.
Figure 284:
Level 0 = beings, things, entities, facts, states of affairs
Level 1 = Pure Presence Being == Social and Psychological aspects
Level 2 = Process Being == Randomness Shapped-Shaping Force
Level 3 = Hyper Being == Inverse Meta
Level 4 = Wild Being == Chiasm of Randomness and Inverse Meta
The four different kinds of Being are meta-levels in relation to each other. Each
one is more difficult to understand as we ascent the hierarchy until we get to the
fifth meta-level which is impossible to grasp.
1304
Pure Presence Being is what we normally think of as Being within our tradition. It
is the highest concept that applies to everything as described by Parmenides, Plato
and Aristotle and taken unchanged down through the tradition. It is epitomized by
the reversible theories of dynamism in Physics. It is the Being of Descartes, Kant,
and is assumed by Husserl as the basic mode of Being which underlies
transcendentals. We can characterize it as an illusory continuity that allows ideas to
exist as objects in the mind. The mind itself is this stream of illusory continuity that
underwritten by all idealistic systems of thought.
Process Being has always lived in the shadow of Pure Presence Being as a kind of
Counter Culture. It was first identified by Heraclitus and then was taken up again by
Hegel, Bergson, and explored by Husserl in terms of Essence Perception (Eidetic
Intuition) and Internal Time Consciousness. Heidegger building on Husserl's work
based his whole philosophy on the contrast between Pure Presence Being which is
atemporal and Process Being in which Being And Time are mixed. This is the
essential Being of Thermodynamic Irreversible Processes far from Equilibrium that
are discussed by Ilya Prigogine in Order Out Of Chaos. Thermodynamics always
implied that time has a direction by pointing out phenomena in which entropy
increases. Recently with Prigogine's work we see that entropy can also have a
negative sign in some special cases of irreversible processes. These are of course
the most interesting cases as they are the ones that support the existence of life as a
far from equilibrium near the edge of chaos phenomena. As Prigogine says all these
processes have their own internal time similar to the Internal Time Consciousness
explored by Husserl and Heidegger together. These thermodynamic processes are
best described by probability and randomness. And it turns out that any isolated
system will tend toward an entropy maximum. It is only in special cases where we
notice that there is an increase of order within systems that are not isolated and are
driven far from equilibrium by energy inputs from the environment. In those cases
the mechanism that produces randomness is reversed to produce instead highly
improbable order production instead. As Goertzel notes Randomness may mean
order that is just too complex for us to understand. Thus Randomness is a projection
we make on data. The data may be ordered but we cannot see the order because it
spans to large a space or time interval. Therefore in Randomness lies the unknown
source of Emergence of new order. This is the creative principle Goertzel invokes to
drive his model of the Inverse Meta. You notice that Goertzel thinks of
Randomness as a shaped/shaping force. Basically this says that we are below the
level of objectification and the separation of subject and object. We have entered an
non-dual realm in which the object or subject cannot be distinguished. Heidegger
1305
talks about this by identifying DASEIN (being there) as the nature of the human
being prior to the separation of subject and object relations. Processes have this
same kind of non-dual structure in which the transformed and the transformation
cannot be easily untangled. Processes are connected with technology that underlies
the production of illusory continuity. We ignore the technological basis as long as it
"works" and only notice it when it breaks down. Goertzel wants to describe chaotic
processes. But chaotic processes are not continuous but instead are mixtures of
continuity and discontinuity.
Hyper Being was discovered when it was realized that processes are segmented
with discontinuities. These discontinuities cannot be understood in the same way as
the patterns of the processes. The segmentation of processes often follow a different
rule than the content of processes within their continuous regime. Fegienbaum
discovered that there was a law to this segmentation when he found that there was a
constant that controlled bifurcation of the far from equilibrium process as it headed
toward chaos. Therefore when we bring chaos theory into play with continuous
processes we find that we need a new theory that accounts for the segmentation of
processes. It is Goertzel's aim to produce such a theory by assuming discontinuity
instead of continuity in his model of the magician SGS. The magicians through
interaction, nomination, and voting produce the segmentation of their own lifecycle
and this segmentation is prior to the production of continuity that happens socially
through collusion between magicians that help each other produce each other from
one lifecycle duration to the next. Hyper Being was first discovered by Merleau-
Ponty in The Phenomenology Of Perception and defined in The Visible And The
Invisible. It was recognized by Heidegger as Being (crossed out) in his essay "Over
the Line." It was taken up and fully explored by Derrida in such works as Of
Grammatology and Speech And Phenomena or Writing And Difference. Derrida
calls Hyper Being the differing/deferring of DifferAnce which he finds in the
counter culture of writing as opposed to the Logocentrism that exalts speech within
our culture. The production of a formal model of chaotic processes that assume
discontinuity and call for the explanation of continuity instead of the reverse is
Goertzel's real contribution as it takes the vaguer philosophical notions of Hyper
Being and gives us a very precise meta-algebraic formal model. Goertzel presents
this model as the basic mechanism by which his Cognitive Equation works. So it is
seen as a model of the Mind. But that model arose from his vision of the Inverse
Meta which is an archetypal source that indicates the boundary between form and
no-form. This boundary is the most fundamental of all discontinuities. All
discontinuities we find within the world point back to this primal discontinuity
1306
between form and void. It is the threshold across which the emergent eventity
comes into the world. That is to say the incomprehensible order hidden in chaotic
randomness becomes comprehensible when it crosses this threshold. We may also
think of Hyper Being as being related to Possibilities and fuzzy mathematics. The
realm of possibilities is purely disconnected as opposed to the realm of probabilities
that are bound to unity of actualization. Possibilities do not have to add to one.
There are myriad possibilities that are all arrayed in discontinuous segments that
coexist. Normally they are thought of as parallel universes in which each possibility
is realized.
Wild Being is the hardest to understand because it is the highest meta-level of

Being. It is right on the edge of what is comprehensible to us. In Goertzel's scheme
we can think of it as the chiasm of the Inverse Meta and the Random Shaping/
Shaped force. We know that these two like Li and Chi are one thing. But it is very
difficult to understand how. We can think of Wild Being as the incomprehensible
combination of order and disorder. We see this incomprehensible fusion in Chaos
that is not totally disordered but has unexpected streaks of order. Wild Being is the
realm of propensities, tendencies, and the "lines of flight" of points toward infinity
in the Mandelbrot set. Deleuze and Guattari use the phrase "line of flight" in their
attempt to produce a philosophy at this meta-level. We find this philosophy in Anti-
oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. In those books they define the Rhizome as a
network without beginning and end and with no tree-like hierarchies. This is their
model of Wild Being. Another good example is the philosophy of John S. Hans in
The Play Of The World where a less extreme philosophical view based on the
generalization of playfulness of all things is expressed. Deleuze and Guattari
express similar sentiments in their definition of the desiring machine that has no
meaning but just "works" and is not differentiated from human beings and any other
kind of machine. This dehumanization of Playfulness and the non-differentiation
between human partial objects and machines of any other kind is a continuous
theme in philosophies at the level of Wild Being because this is the point bordering
on the absolute non-duality of the void. Merleau-Ponty expressed this in terms of
his concept of Flesh which is chiasmic and reversible. We see the absolutely non-
dual through the eyes of reversibility right at the last point where comprehension is
possible here at the highest meta-level. Goertzel only indicates this level through
the implicit chiasm of his two fundamental ordering/disordering principles.
However, when we analyze his Magician SGS we see that it is a synergy of all four
kinds of Being. Propensities appear as the social field of collusion. We can
understand this field of collusion through Coutu's Tendency in Situation (TINSIT)
1307
which is the fundamental constituent of the social field. Deleuze and Guattari call
this social field the Socius and pretend that the individual has no existence but see
instead only desiring machines floating in the social field called the "socius." We
calculate the propensity by multiplying the fuzzy possibility by the stochastic
probability. When we treat these two numbers as a vector then we have what is
called a Hyper Number. But when we collapse them through multiplication we get
the propensity which is what transforms the possibility into the actualization
described by the probability. Propensities therefore are very important as they are
what connects endless discontinuous possibilities to discreet realized actualizations
bounded by probabilities. Over these actualities the determinate idealizations float
in the illusory continuity that is the fantasy limit of all measurements.
In the world, there are theories or situations in which all four of these kinds of
Being appear in synergy. When we see those synergies we are looking at a
manifestation of the Kosmic Atom within existence. Goertzel's theory of Magician
SGSs is such an example. But there are many others. Another prominent one is the
theory in physics of virtual particle creation and annihilation. If this theory is
analyzed we see the combination in it in a different way of the four kinds of Being.
Synergies of the four kinds of Being indicate emergences out of the void. This is
because every emergent eventity must pass through all four meta-levels in order to
be a genuine novelty in the world. What is happening if something passes through
all the meta-levels of Being is that we know that it must have originated at meta-
level five which is incomprehensible. The incomprehensibility of meta-level five
allows us to associate it with the void. This is because the emptiness of the void is
non-experiencible and non-conceptualizable. Basically the void is unthinkable. And
what appears from it is unheard of and astonishing when it first appears. That is
why we call the emergent eventity a novum. It is the equivalent of a nova star to the
intellect. Thus every synergy of the four kinds of Being indicate the void or the
boundary between form and no-form.
But we can say that because Goertzel does not explicitly treat Wild Being that his
Magician SGS as we said above does not embody the most radical form of
creativity or novelty: That is the novelty of a new individual of a new kind
orthogonal to all other kinds and individuals that exist prior to the emergent event.
Self-generating systems do not take into account the essential otherness that is
necessary for a genuine emergence. What we need is a balance between self-
generating and other-generating that allows the system to create new order based on
the arising of new individuals of new kinds spontaneously. Emergent Meta-Systems
1308
fill this role of extending magician SGSs to the limit of what is comprehensible by
explicitly including the chiasmic structure of Wild Being.
Goretzel's great contribution is to give us a meta-algebraic model of the archetype

of the Kosmic Atom that points to the interface with the void. But what we want to
do is see that the Kosmic Atom is itself a model of the process of emergence and
itself comes into existence. The coming into existence of the Kosmic Atom itself is
not included in Goertzel's model. That is why we must move from Self-Generating
Systems to a meta-system centered formulation used in defining the EMS. We note
that the only difference here is whether the SGS completely dies out between
lifecycles. If it does then this radicalizes the assumption of discontinuity. This
causes us to provide an auxiliary explanatory structure to bridge this unbridgeable
gap. The bridging of the unbridgeable gap causes us to create a super-rational Koan
like structure in our theory. It is that structure that points directly to the void. When
we have located the void (the fifth meta-level of Being) then there we see the
process of radical emergence by which the Kosmic Atom itself comes into
existence. This is a very ancient concept. We find it first in Egypt as its first
religions tradition preserved in Memphis where we see Atun arise from the mound
above the eight primordial gods (ogdad). This Atun later in Greek hands became the
Atom the primordial unity of matter. The separation of the Atun from the
primordial eight gods is a very significant primal scene as we will see when it is
linked to the octonion structure of the fourfold. The atun is at the same time the
arising of the Universe in which we live. That universe has just the right cosmic
structure to make life possible. The universe is one of a sea of possible universes
that are not unlike the atoms of our universe except one is assumed to be all the
same and the other is assumed to be all different. This relationship between the
primal structures on the highest and the smallest scale related by a fractal
differentiation is the meaning of the Kosmic Atom. Goertzel's model describes this
in a non-geometrical way using meta-algebras instead.
However, what we see is that the Kosmic Atom archetype must itself emerge and
the phases of that emergence are structured by the different kinds of Being. In fact,
we see this trail of emergence in the arising of the system from the meta-system by
passing through the different special systems stages. Thus what we see is that there
is a basic unfolding structure that integrates the meta-levels of Being as the
separators of the different stages between meta-system and system moving step by
step through the special systems.
Figure 285:
1309
Meta-system (sedenion) [general economy] pure complementarity

|
|--- Wild Being (chaos)
| Reflexive-system (octonion)
|
|--- Hyper Being (possibility)
| Autopoietic-system (quaternion)
|
|--- Process Being (probability)
| Dissipative-system (complexnion)
|
|--- Pure Presence Being (determinate)
|
System (reals) [restricted economy]
This process appears in the primal scene of Egyptian relation as the separation of
the Atun as "system" from the background of the mound. Within the mound we see
the eight primal gods that appear in pairs so what we can see embedded in the eight
the four pairs or alternatively we can see the two male and female principles. So the
whole chain of symmetry breakings is preserved in the ogdad below the surface of
the mound. This same primal scene is preserved in the Kosmic Atom which is
Goertzel's view is modeled algebraically by the Magician SGS. But we have shown
in a previous paper that underlying the operations of the Magician meta-algebra are
the division algebras loss of properties at each stage moving away from the full
ordering and full properties of the reals and imaginary algebra. So within the meta-
algebraic model as an implicate ordering is the differentiation of the division
algebras as described by the Cayley-Dickson process. This is the process by which
Heidegger's Fourfold unfolds the world. It is a fragmentation of mutually mirroring
slivers of reflective glass. Onar Aam calls this full structure the Magical
Mirrorhouse. It has a very complex algebraic structure that he has been exploring.
The point is that hidden within the model of the Kosmic Atom in the meta-algebraic
version produced by Goertzel steps that separate the kinds of Being are articulated.
And the Kinds of Being as a whole appear in the elements of the theory itself as
well. So this model brings together all the elements that show us the process by
which the Kosmic Atom itself unfolds. That genetic structure then conditions all
other emergent events within our world.
How is the Kosmic Atom itself structured to display the different kinds of Being in
synergy?
1310
In order to answer this question it is necessary to have a more precise vision of the
structure of the Atom. We can see an artistic rendering of the Kosmic Atom on the
cover of ReVISION: A Journal of Consciousness and Change FALL 1982 Vol. 5
#2. But all these artistic renderings still leave much to be desired when it comes to
precision. The clearest vision that I am aware of is that of Steven Briggs, Ph.D. a
Clinical Psychologist who is in practice in Johnson County, Kansas. Initially
through LSD experimentation and later through guided imagery based on the work
of David Grove he produced a very explicit vision of the Kosmic Atom which is
very similar to the artwork on the ReVISION journal cover. I will attempt to
describe this vision based on personal communications with S. Briggs.
There is a source point of white light rays at the center of the atom. From this point
each ray of light is a world which emanates and returns to the source point. These
rays relate to each other through the double helix structure of the Kosmic Atom.
The two helixes have an inner core and outer circumference. The cores of the two
atoms form a helix around each other as well. Inside that core is the Full Void. At
certain points along the length of the core helix of helixes there are nodal points.
From these nodal points universes emerge, differentiate, and then collapse back to
annihilate. But also there are universes that do not annihilate but just miss each
other setting up a standing wave formation at the nodes. This standing wave
formation arises within the full void where the seeds of the universes are stored
between emanations. As we move from node to node we can follow the outer
helixes as they move between the Chakra like nodes. When we follow the outer
helixes we find that at teach stage there is a twist of the mobius strip between levels
so that there is only one side to the ribbon of the helix. But every other loop causes
us not to twist but to go through a region of discontinuity between sections of the
Penrose triangle. Thus the whole structure has global incoherence and local
coherence around each node. Around each node there is also local distinction but
global non-duality given by the fact that the helixes are mobius strips. As one
moves along the ribbon of the helix to higher and higher levels there is the feeling
that one is moving from one meta-level to the next. When one goes through all
seven of the meta-level nodes one starts over from the bottom again and the whole
structure appears to be at the next meta-level. Thus the structure allows one to move
between meta-levels forever, as one cycles around the helix. The Kosmic Atom has
no inside nor outside, no top nor bottom. It is itself the standing waves around the
point of origin and return of all the universes.
When we compare this to the Emergent Meta-System we see an important point
1311
which is that the full void is the place where the seeds of the next lifecycle is laid
down. Out of this full void the seeds fructify, then interact, then nominate
candidates for the next lifecycle (and anti-candidates). After annihilation occurs
then the seeds of the next span of the lifecycle are placed in the full void. The nodes
of the Kosmic Atom are the places where these seeds are laid down and from which
they arise again. The seven nodes (Steve Briggs does not specify this number but
we are here assuming that they would match the Chakras) are thus the successive
incarnations of the seeds from different lifecycles. Annihilation destroys the even
and leaves the odd. The odd create the standing wave structure that approximates
the structure of the Octonion which is itself an odd exceptional and unique
mathematical structure. Moving between nodes we have the helix structure which
has the form of a mobius strip signifying non-duality. But every other bridge
between nodes instead approximates the Penrose Triangle which establishes global
Incoherence and local coherence. Thus we can see that the absolute non-duality of
the Kosmic Atom is a chiasm between the duals of the Mobius strip and the Penrose
Triangle. This is what prevents us from representing it. At the center of the helix
perhaps on a deeper level is a single point from which arise all the universes and to
which return all the universes. The Kosmic Atom itself acts as a standing wave in
this involuting structure of all the universes being created and destroyed. There
exist the following levels of reality:
Figure 286:
White Light
Flickering Light
Source Form
Shadow of Source Form
Shakti
Disillusion of Maya
Maya
Purification State
Being
Awareness
Imagry
Thinking
Emotions
Body
White light is what emits from the Out-of-Time source point. The white light
flickers as the universes are created and destroyed in each moment. The Source
form is the Kosmic Atom which is non-dual and exists to point to the boundary
between form and no-form. But what we actually see is the shadow of the source
1312
form which we are representing here as a double intertwined helix. The pulsing
energy of that shadow is Shakti, Chi, or Luft. From the Out-of-Time source (Jabrut)
comes light which is deeply ordered and that ordering can be thought of as the Li.
The Out-of-Time source is the origin of all causation, there are no secondary
causes. The source form exists in the realm called the Malikut in Sufic parlance.
This shadow of the mundane world cannot be see as long as the mundane world is
visible. The mundane world is an Illusion that obscures our view of the underling
world of sources. It is only when we become disillusioned with the illusion of Maya
that we can enter that other abode. Within the Mulk (mundane world) there are
many other levels such as those listed above including the level where Being, the
mechanism of presencing of illusion, appears.
This vision of the Kosmic Atom allows us to see that it has a deep structure that is
fairly complex. We see in this complexity the basic logic of disconnection between
the realms of Mulk, Malikut and Jabrut. The mulk is the mundane world or the in-
time realm. The Malikut is the realm of source forms or the endlesstime realm. The
Jabrut is the realm of pure power of the single source or the out-of-time realm.
None of these realms can be seen at the same time. They are radically disconnected.
You see either Mulk or Malikut. When they vanish then the Jabarut may appear.
The Jabrut is in this case represented by the out-of-time point from which all the
universes emanate and later return. The Kosmic Atom itself exists in the realm of
sources called the Malikut. It is not representable but exists in a completely non-
dual state. We project upon it the forms of helixes and the general form of the
Kosmic Atom. Different people make different projections. The projections of
Westerners are conditioned by the primal scene of the Well and the Tree (see The
Fragmentation Of Being And The Path Beyond The Void). Emptiness is the
difference between the fundamental realms of experience: i.e. Mulk, Malikut, and
Jabrut. Thus emptiness separates the sources from the things. Also emptiness
separates the sources of things from the ultimate source with no secondary
causation.
The thing one must understand about Being is that it is the source of Maya or
endless illusion. It only exists in the Indo-european tradition. The Chinese and
Islamic traditions do not have it as a fundamental concept. Thus in those traditions
things arise directly from the void with no intermediary. This arising is modeled by
the logic of disconnection between the fundamental realms of experience: i.e. Mulk,
Malikut, and Jabrut. But within the Western tradition there is an essential
deformation or flaw that places an intermediate stage between the void and things
1313
called Being. This intermediary stage in turn has meta-level stages we call the four
Kinds of Being that form a bridge between beings and the fifth meta-level of Being
called the Void. The Kosmic Atom is a source form. This means that it is in some
sense embedded in the void itself. This means that from one point of view the
sources exist and the single source is obscured. But from another viewpoint only the
single source exists and the individual sources of things do not exist. However,
when we look at the Kosmic Atom from within the western tradition these fine
points get lost. Trough our experience we see that the Kosmic Atom can be seen as
a chiasm between the Penrose Triangle and the Mobius Strip which causes us to
oscillate between the incomprehensiblity of global non-duality and global
incoherence within which we catch glimpses of local coherence and dualistic
distinctions. This chiasm between global incoherence and global non-duality is
fundamental and can be seen as an image of Wild Being. Within this standing wave
of the Kosmic Atom that in turn is composed of meta-levels of reality
corresponding to the Chakras there is a continual creation and annihilation of
universes which can be seen as the image of Hyper Being. These universes each
form a temporal gestalt from their seeds in the full void to their fructification and
development to their interaction to their nomination to their annihilation and laying
down of new seeds. This temporal gestalt is the image of Process Being. We see the
Kosmic Atom as a representation that is frozen in time made up of helixes that
intertwine. The frozen picture of the Kosmic Atom that underlies our idea of it is an
image of Pure Presence. So we see that all the kinds of Being exist within the
representation of the Kosmic Atom even through strictly speaking it is beyond
Being entirely. The point is that the Kosmic Atom exists as an emergent event and
thus must have the form of a synergy of the Kinds of Being. It is the primal
emergent event that organizes before hand all other emergent events within the
Western Worldview. This is an ancient structure within our worldview that has been
fully explored in the author's book The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path
Beyond The Void.
4. Complementarities and the Polarity of the Noumena and the

Autopoietic Special System
One way to think about the Kosmic Atom is that it is a standing wave within the
interference of different complementarities. So we are reduced to looking at a set of
complementary opposites which together give us a super-rational intuition of the
general economy of the world. It is Bataille in his Accursed Share as pointed out by
1314
Plotnitsky in Complementarities who develops this concept of the general economy

as opposed to the restricted economy. We interpret restricted economy as system
gestalt and general economy as meta-system proto-gestalt. And we acknowledge
that complementarities are partial systems that are duals and which exclude each
other at a fundamental level to the extent that we are forced as Bohr suggests into an
anti-epistemology or anti-ontology. In other words the complementarities show us
fundamental limits or infobarriers that delimit an intrinsic ignorance about the
world. We know of four of these at least:
Figure 287:
simultaneity of relativity -- Einstein
measurement of quantum mechanics -- Heisenberg,
Plank, Bohr
entropy of thermodynamics -- Prigogine
color of chromodynamics (non separation of quarks) -
- Gel-Mann
These complementarities are found to be fundamental in physics. The world does

not stop here but produces all kinds of complementarities out of the Meta-system.
This is because the creation of exclusive duals is the rule of nature. This is why we
use the term eventity. The wave/particle duality is just one of the myriad polar
opposites produced within creation. Creation is a cornucopia of such formations
which well up from the void. The void is represented by the exclusivity of the
complementarities. When we construct them we are pressing our faces against the
glass of the unknowable.
Now what I wish do do in this section is show that we can construct a model of the
autopoietic system from the four fundamental complementarities of physics. In
other words the autopoietic system is the interference between the four most
fundamental physical infobarriers:
measure entropy simultaneity non-separation
This is an elaboration of an idea presented by Prigogine in Order Out Of Chaos.

There he suggests that that entropy is a form of complementarity in
thermodynamics like that in relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It was
Lohmus, Paal and Sorgess in Nonassociative Algebras In Physics that coined the
term infobarrier for complementarities and suggested that the non-separation of
quarks is another example. So taking this together we see that Autopoietic systems
1315
derive their strange properties from being set over the this paradoxicality that exists
in nature as a knot of interference between the different paradoxes. Now we will
note that color or non-separation of quarks are a low level phenomena that is very
different from the other more macro-phenomena. Therefore we will consider the set
of complementarities to be a broken symmetry that breaks non-separation off from
the other complementarities. This appears as the fact that the autopoietic system
appears as a unity, ie. non-separable and this non-separable unity is articulated in
the other three complementarities. We will also assume that the other three
complementarities form a quaternionic like structure of imaginaries so that their
inter-relations are also meaningful as well as the separate complementarities. Thus
we see that each complementarity has a specific meaning with respect to the
autopoietic formation and that they interact with each other to form a quaternionic
Hyperset like structure that we may describe following George Leonard in the
Silent Pulse as Holoidal, that is like a meta-hologram that is interpenetrated.
So let us look at the individual complementarities and see how they describe the
autopoietic system. The first is the measure complementarity that says that one
cannot measure the velocity and momentum of a particle at the same time. So we
can only measure one at a time and the other remains forever unknown no matter
how tricky we try to get. This measure complementarity is related to the fact that
autopoietic systems are closed to observation. All such systems are cognitive/living.
In other words the cognitive aspect is fused to the living aspect. Outside observers
cannot tell what such a system will do because its internal state might dictate any
reaction given a set of inputs. Output is based on the relation between internal state
and the hysteresis of maintaining homeostasis. So we can only really think about an
autopoietic system in terms of probability distributions of inputs and outputs. Thus
we can only see inside the system or outside of the system never both at once. So
our measurements can never be deterministic. This fuses the observer with the
autopoietic system under observation. And it fuses the internal cognitive function to
the living function of the autopoietic system. Thus the measurement
complementarity is well applied to the autopoietic system.
The second complementarity is simultaneity. That is the simultaneity of Relativity

theory which says that you cannot know what is happening in two separated points
in space simultaneously but must wait for the finite speed of light to know what was
happening at both places. We already know that this feature of relativity theory
applies to autonomous systems. Where there is no global clock different agents
have a problem knowing what time it is and how to coordinate their actions. This
1316
appears in autopoietic systems as the problem of resonance. In order to

communicate and become one two dissipative systems must form a resonance and
through that become an autopoietic system. But how do you form resonances when
you are limited by the finite speed of light signals. The answer to that has to be that
for any given autopoietic system time must flow backwards internally. This means
that the system must have its own internal time different form external time that has
a reversed flow. That reversed flow time stream allows the system to review
backwards the timing of the other and project the point in time of resonance
forward. This also works between autopoietic systems when they form reflexive
systems made up of two symbiotic autopoietic systems.
The third complementarity has to do with entropy production. As Prigogine says

you either know the initial state with infinite information or you know the phase
state map. The complementarity is that you cannot know both at the same time. This
creates a strange kind of entropy that can become negative in certain circumstances
in far from equilibrium systems. This appears in the dissipative system as order
from nowhere that erupts to cause dissipation. It appears in the autopoietic system
as two streams of order from nowhere that balance each other. The autopoietic
system uses this order balancing to organize itself and maintain that organization.
These are the three complementarities that give the autopoietic system its
strangeness when they are brought together and interfere with each other. Basically
because the autopoietic system is standing over the intersection of these
complementarities it can never be known in any intrinsic way. What we see is its
strange external appearance. And what it promises us is that we will never know the
inner workings of the entity that has this kind of unity. Yet once we know that this
is a model of interacting and intersecting complementarities then it is possible to
understand the autopoietic system to some extent in terms of the relations between
complementarities. We do this by seeing that the complemenarities form a
quaternionic holoidal structure.
non-simultaneity non-measurability = neg-entropy
If we cannot be simultaneously different places as once and cannot measure with

precision and rigor then as Prigogine then we cannot know the starting state of the
system completely as the starting space is spread out in spacetime and contains
elements that have both position and momentum. This means that neg-entropy is
possible as a fluctuation within far from equilibrium systems. Entropy is not
1317
unidirectional but can take a negative form in far-from equilibrium nonlinear

thermodynamic systems. The complementarity of entropy is a product of the
combination of the complementarities of Relativity Theory and Quantum
Mechanics together when we assume that Quantum Mechanics operates on all
scales not just the micro scale.
neg-entropy non-simultaneity = non-measureability
Not knowing initial states or the phase space of a system and not being in all places
simultaneously leads directly to non-measurability. Non-measurability says we
cannot know both momentum and position. Position is differentiated within the
spacetime/timespace Matrix by non-simultaneity. Momentum is the development of
position in the way an initial state develops into subsequent states in the phase
space. So the very thing that is denied but the non-measurability is the
complementarity between simultaneous positions and the complementarity between
initial and final states. The complementarity of complementarities yields a
complementarity.
neg-entropy non-measureability = non-simultaneity
Similarly the break between initial and final states and the inability to measure
completely prevents us from having simultaneous knowledge of different points in
the spacetime/timespace Matrix. It breaks our ability to get from here to there via
either motion or by a thermodynamic process. These are the only two ways that two
points can be linked in time. So therefore simultaneity is denied to all points in the
manifold no matter how close unless they belong to the same quantum and thus are
undifferentiated.
The reverse of each of these terms above equals the negative.
non-measurability non-simultaneity = entropy
What is interesting is that we can see that there is a non-commutative property of

the two complemetarities that yield the opposite result. In other words the
difference between entropy and neg-entropy is a very subtle property of the non-
commutation of the other complementarities in the set. Equally we can get entropy
out of non-simultaneity and non-measurability because they ensure that results
predominantly diverge. So when we talk about information flow between non-
1318
simultaneous points and the inability to measure these information flows precisely
then we find that entropy can be the result, i.e. the scattering of information and the
introduction of disorder.
non-simultaneity neg-entropy = measureability
Similarly measurability depends on bringing things that are separate close for
comparison. When we do that we assume that we can overcome information loss in
a neg-entropic fashion to get a measure. Thus measurability also depends on
bringing things that are non-simultaneous together and ordering them.
non-measureability neg-entropy = simultaneity
Finally simultaneity itself is an ordering of points that are non-meaureable at a

distance. This means that there is a possibility of resonance between these points.
This rare possibility of resonance allows order to be transferred from point to point
instantaneously under certain conditions. Quantum tunneling is an example of this.
non-simul neg-entropy - neg-entropy non-simul = 2 non-measure
The difference between the two non-commutating aspects of the combined

complementarity yields a doubling of the non-measurability. Utter non-
measurability is complete randomness.
non-simul non-measure - non-measure non-simul = 2 non-entropy
Similarly if we take the difference between these two non-commutating

complementarities we get the opposite of complete randomness which is complete
order.
neg-entropy non-measure - non-measure neg-entropy = 2 non-simul
And again if we take the difference between these two further non-commutating
complementarities then we get the extreme of non-simultaneity. This is the two way
non-simultaneity between two observers that defines the inertial frames.
Complete order and disorder as well as the inertial frames all reduce to the
singularity. The singularity can be seen as the source of complete order or complete
1319
disorder. It can also be seen as the source of the division of observers into inertial
frames.
neg-entropy non-measure non-simul = singularity = non-separable
All three complementarities at once also define the singularity. We have already
seen that the singularity can be seen as a non-separable unity. That unity is either
the unity of all order, the unity of all disorder, or the unity of all inertial frames. In
any of these cases it puts it outside the normal relations between things within the
Matrix.
This may seem like a hodge podge of rules but they are the translation of the
quaternion rules. What it shows is that the three complementarities together give us
the unity of a singular system that is non-separable. This is the very image of the
anomalous autopoietic special system that appears in some far from equilibrium
phenomena. Such a system summarizes the different complementarities that exist in
the physical universe. But by doing so and creating a theoretical singularity it builds
a bridge to Logos. In that we see the fusion between the living and the cognitive that
exists in the chiasm of the autopoietic system. The autopoietic system takes us
directly into the non-dual realm which is beyond the dualism of logos and physus. It
takes us directly to the nomos or ordering that exists in that non-dual realm between
the dualistic opposites. That nomos is expressed in the quaternionic formation that
is the template for the autopoietic special system which in turn is the form of the
paradoxicality of the overlapping multiple physical complementarities. A similar
super-paradoxical formation could be constructed in the logos out of other non-
physical complementarities. In fact Plato in his LAWS constructs an autopoietic
IMAGE of the Second Best City which embodies these kinds of paradoxes.
We can see that each pair of complementarities yield the other one. Also that if we
reverse the relation of the complemtarities then because they are non-commuting
we get the negative effect. So entropy can change into neg-entropy by reversing the
relation of non-simultaneity and non-measureability. The same is true of the other
relations which all together form a closed system. Similarly we can see that the
difference between reversed pair is double of the other.
Now we can translate this into our threefold reserve when we realize that in the
reserve these points become truth, reality and identity and the unity becomes the
noumena within the field of Being. So the autopoietic system is mirrored in the
1320
Reserve as the sub-parts of Being in relation to the noumena. The noumena is

something that is impossible to see behind appearances. The autopoietic system is
impossible to see into within appearances. So the noumena and the autopoietic
system are duals of each other.
The quaternion in the threefold reserve combines with the quaternion of the
autopoietic system based on the infobarriers to create an octonion structure that
combines the spacetime/timespace Matrix within which the autopoietic system
exists with the eternal threefold reserves beyond the Matrix.
We can see the autopoietic system as a closed fountain where the water of life
continuously recirculates. This fountain becomes overflowing when we go up to the
de-centering reflexive level at which two autopoietic systems can produce a
symbiotic relation and out of that the ecstasy necessary to project a world. When
autopoietic systems resonate we get the formation of the Kosmic Atom.
The concept of overlapping complementarities fits Plotnitsky's ideas of the

heterogeneous interactivity and interacting heterogeneity of complementarities that
exist within the General Economy. However, he does not realize that these
complementary complementarities interact and resonate with each other based on a
particular formation mathematical of the division algebras. It is not just that the
complementarities form a random rhizomatic grid or network. But that within the
network or rhizome there are resonances that form very regular patterns through the
process of progressive bisection. I other words the complementarities will form a
cascade of symmetry breakings that are all interactive with each other and through
their heterogeneity these symmetry breakings create a meta-pattern of resonance
that appears as the division algebras. This occurs because this pattern is ultra-
efficient and the probabilities of this pattern is rare but if anything gets into that
pattern it lasts much longer than any other pattern against the general push toward
dispersion that the different complementarities represent. Therefore the rare results
in the prevalent general rule that organizes both the physus and the logos due to this
unexpected ultra-efficiency.
Now the question that comes to the fore is how to capture this within our Emergent
Meta-System formation. It is through the interstices in existence that are created by
the complementarities being simultaneously applied that new emergent orders come
into existence. The interaction of the complementarities represent the degrees of
freedom within the Matrix of manifestation. The noumena and the autopoietic
1321
system form the poles of that freedom. The noumena is behind manifestation and
accessed by the quaternion of truth, reality, and identity. The autopoietic system is
an anomaly that can stand as a figure on the ground of manifestation and still be
impossible to comprehend by any observer. Between these two poles are a tension
though which the implicate order produces new gestalts with emergent eventities
arising and moving from the pole of noumena to the pole of autopoietic special
system. Autopoietic systems as socially resonating swarms are the only things that
can SEE the emergent eventities. They arise from the noumena reorganizing
manifestation and appear to be recognized by the autopoietic systems acting
together socially. This emanation and absorption process is an interval that defines
the lifecycle of the emergent eventity. In fact we can model this in terms of the
phonon exchanged between the electrons of the superconducting system. The
emergent evenity is like the phonon and the noumena and the autopoietic system are
like the two electrons. The emergent eventity is an information pulse that
reorganizes the lattice of the environment containing perfect information about the
new structure of the environment that passes between the noumena and the
perfectly paradoxical phenomena of the autopoietic system.
In this way we see that the noumena/autopoietic system together form a social
resonance at the reflexive octonion level as well as embodying the perfect
information exchange of the quaternion autopoieitc level. This is actually an
amazing model because it explains the nature of the emergent eventity. Such
eventities have three forms:
Artificial Emergence is where the new thing arises out of the conjunction of
two already existing things. A:B=C
Chiasmic Emergence is where the new thing arises out of the conjunction of
two already existing things plus some random extra component. We
can see this as merely analogy where A:B::R:C in which A and B are
the known existants and R is the Random new element that gives us C
as an emergent. We can think of R as a mini-radical emergence that is
internal to the process of creating the new thing that is a combination
between things that already exist and something that was orthogonal to
everything that already existed.
Radical Emergence is where the new thing arises directly from the void as a
random fluctuation without any intermediary of the known things.
1322
Radical Emergence might be represented as Void ---> C where C pops

out of the void as a random fluctuation that is orthogonal to every now
existing thing. We could equally say that C was pulled out of the
Reserve.
Goertzel's Magician systems contain Artificial and Chiasmic Emergence. Radical

Emergence is a feature of the Emergent Meta-system that is an extension of the
Magician SGS.
Now we can think of the noumena and the autopoietic system as the two things that
are combined to get artificial emergence. In that case the emergent event is just the
time it takes to make that connection. But we can go beyond that to think that some
random element might be added to the relation to create the new thing. That random
element comes from the overlapping of the complementarities. It is a distortion
added by the octonionic mixing between the two quaternions. It comes from their
non-associativeness that is added to their non-commutative properties within each
quaternion. But we can also understand that that we can see the system as a pure
octonion structure without revering to the quaternions that make it up. In that case
we can say that a new thing that arises from nowhere is merely an expression of the
ability of the octonionic field of the social to produce dissipative pulses
spontaneously. Thus at the octonionic level Radical Emergence is possible and in
fact that is why the emergent is the sine quo non of the social. It takes a social
formation to recognize the radically emergent eventity. The social can produce and
recognize those emergent eventities. What is amazing is that G.H. Mead's original
insight in The Philosophy Of The Present is vindicated and given a specific
mathematical underpinning in the nomos that underlies the upwelling of both the
logos and the physus.
5. Complementarities and Emergent Meta-systems.
Now we are in a position to begin attempting to build our model of Emergent Meta-
systems. And we will begin starting with complementaries. What we need is a
logical model of complementarity. We will construct this model beginning with the
process of logical proof. In logical proof we have a sequent composed of antecedent
conjunctions that implies succedent disjunctions. In order to build logical
complementarity it is only necessary to have a progressive bisection of antecedents
and another progressive bisection of succedents in which each pair of nodes are
1323
labeled negative and positive respectively after the symmetry breaking. Now if we
reverse the signs on the nodes we have the complement proof structure. These
structures are called by Kant antinomies. If you take one set of premises you get one
conclusion and if you take the opposite set of premises you get the opposite
conclusion. What needs to be emphasized is that the most general structure of both
the succedent and antecedent is the progressive bisection and by reversing polarity
with this symmetry breaking then we get the complementary antinomies which are
duals of each other.
Now what we want to do is connect these to the magician SGSs by realizing that
each term in either the succedent or antecedent may be seen as a magician, and the
opposite term in the progressive bisection may be seen as the anti-magician. The
point of implication can be seen as the full void. The conjunction of antecedents can
then be seen as the process of annihilation that leads to the planing of the seeds in
the full void. The disjunction of succedents can be seen as the fructification of those
seeds unfolding in spacetime as the swarm arises anew after the full collapse of the
previous lifecycle phase. We merely posit that the succedents become antecedents
leading to a new implication. This transformation of succedents into antecedents
occurs in a moment of mutual action between the magicians SGS components. Thus
we can relate the antecedent conjunctions to the annihilation operator of the
magician system, the implication to the existence of the seeds in the full void, the
succedent disjunction to the gestalt pattern formation operator of the magician
system, and mutual action between magicians as they are transformed from
succedent to antecedent to the mutual action operator of the magician system.
Arising from the void would then be related to the creation operator that is added to
the Magician System to make it into the Emergent Meta-System. So the cycle of
inference or proof is precisely the same as the lifecycle of the Emergent Meta-
system extension of the Magician SGSs.
In logic the interaction between logical terms is ignored. But we want to explore
the possibility of this interaction because it then allows us to complete the Emergent
Meta-System cycle and use the well known process of logical proof as our structure
for understanding both complementarity and the arising and destruction of
components. When we do a proof in a formal system it is often assumed that we
will only do this proof once because the terms will remain stable over time.
However, with Magician System and Emergent Meta-System components we
cannot be sure that terms will exist in the next moment that exist in this moment of
the lifecycle of the swarm. Thus because we have assumed discontinuity of the
1324
swarm in time we must do the proof over and over again iteratively. When we do
the proof we know that there are actually two proofs that must be done at the same
time. These are the complementary proofs that come from reversing signs. So these
two proofs exists like the dual helixes of the Kosmic Atom that intertwine. Thus the
cycling through the process of proof will always be inherently dual and will always
be different due to the fact that in each lifecycle there is a nomination process by
which the through conjunction leads to annihilation. What survives this annihilation
process will be the odd MS/EMS components that will seed the full void of
implication and will fructify in the next lifecycle of the MS/EMS.
Now the problem with logic as it stands today is that it is too weak to actually
handle this process of proof or implication in the way that is necessary to develop
the MS/EMS structure. In order to get a robust enough logic we need to follow
August Stern and adopt his Matrix Logic. Matrix Logic is based on a fundamental
insight that if we use binary truth vectors that it is possible to use the truth tables as
matrix operators on these binary vectors (bra or ket) to create a more robust kind of
logic that is a super-set of classical logic. This new logic has what Priest calls para-
completeness and para-consistency. In other words it has new truth values for
neither and both. Applying matrix operations to truth vectors allows us to construct
a quasi-mathematical logic and has many profound implications that August Stern
fully explores in his book Matrix Logic And The Mind. We will jump to this new
level of complexity where Godel's proof does not disturb us due to the fact that
para-consistency of undecidability has been incorporated into the logic directly.
This means that every magician will be a term in either the antecedent conjunction
or the succedent disjunction and this term will be expressed as a matrix logic string
of binary truth vectors and Matrix Logic operators.
But we note that we have already said that magicians are pulled from a triple
reserve associated with truth, identity, or reality. So this means that each term may
be triple, and that instead of just truth vectors we also have reality and identity
vectors. These different strings of binary vectors and operators may be seen as
colored red, green and yellow in order to designate which parts of the term are
pulled from which reserve. The reserves may be associated with the full void. The
creation of the seeds may be considered the same as marking magicians in the
reserve to be produced in the next lifecycle round. But this exercise does not tell us
what the magicians themselves are made of but only how their truth. reality and
identity are determined. It should be noted that Matrix Logic allows us a negative
one truth value as well as zero and one. This truth value corresponds to the
1325
significance "hidden." We have already noted that emergent events are like the
phonons that travel between superconducting electrons in a Cooper pair. The pair in
question are the noumena and the autopoietic system. Thus when something is
identified with the noumena it is hidden. When it becomes manifest it has some
partial truth, reality or identity different from negative one. When it is fully
manifest as a contradiction along each of its dimensions, ie with value 2, then it is
identical with the autopoietic system. All truth, reality and identity values between
negative one and two are part of manifestation to some extent. We have also posited
that there is an imaginary reality, truth and identity value in each dimension. These
form a quaternion. Each of them refer to diagonalize self-reference. Thus together
the dimensions of truth, reality and identity unite to define the self of the enventity
in question.
When we look at the Emergent Meta-System itself we can see it as a string of Laws
of Form/Pattern aspects that encompass surreal numbers. Goertzel has shown that
magician systems (MS) can be seen as Spencer-Brown LAWS OF FORM terms
and that the laws of form can give them their proper dynamics. But when we look at
thing in the world we can see that form and pattern are chaiasmic duals and we must
always consider both. One way of considering both is to fill the forms with content.
And one form of content that is particularly interesting is the Surreal Numbers of
Conway and Kunth. Now what we know of the surreal numbers is that they are a
progressive bisection starting from zero and expanding to encompass all the reals
and surprisingly the infinite and infinitesimal numbers as well in a natural way. We
can think of the surreals as either quantity or quality terms. This is because of the
interesting transformation between quantity and quality based on the formula N^2
and 2^N. If we have a Lano N^2 chart of the entities in a system along the diagonal
of a matrix, then the intersections off the diagonal are the number of possible two
way relations between the things. If we interpenetrate these things we get instead
2^N which is the number of possible of qualitative states of this system. The
successive levels of complexity of these possible qualitative states appears as the
Pascal Triangle. It marks the successive levels of the interpenetration of all things
within the void. Now if we look at it we see that the qualitative states can be
represented as a progressive bisection that mirrors the surreal quantitative bisection.
This mirroring can be seen as another image of the antecedent conjunctions and the
succedent disjunctions of the proof structure. Thus in order to get the material
substrate of the Emergent Meta-system components we take a similar rooted tree to
that we employ in our proofs. We could call this rooted tree an dendrite similar to
that which appears on an axon cell of the brain. From this dendrite we get a set of up
1326
and down marks that can be interpreted as a qualitative state from a 2^N qualitative
heuristic structure OR as a quantitative surreal number. We place this surreal
qualitative/quantitative content within the Laws of Form structures thus:
Figure 288:
Process Being
overhangs
________________________
_____________ | _______
\/ /\ \/ \/ | \/ /\ \/ | \/ \/ |
Surreal^ | | |
Wild Being ^ : ^strut of Pure Presence
| |
|______________|
re-entrant undertow
Hyper Being
We note that the LAWS OF FORM as defined by Spencer Brown include explicitly
three kinds of Being. The vertical struts of his "marks" represent Pure Presence
Being. The horizontal overhangs of his "marks" represent Process Being. And the
re-entrant undertows which act like Go-To's and thus give us the differing and
deferring of DifferAnce introduce Hyper Being within his formalism. What we note
is that between the overhangs and the undertow are the "ups" and "downs" of the
surreals. It is the surreals that finally complete the meta-levels of Being and give us
a reference for Wild Being within the Laws of Form structure.
Now this is of interest because it is possible to see the surreal numbers as half way
between quality and quantity just as the Laws of Form marks are half way between
operators and operands. And surreal numbers are also a half way house between
finitude and infinity as they encompass both. But the way that they encompass
finitude and infinity is strange and counter intuitive. Surreal numbers have an inner
fractal dimension of earlier and later as well as up and down. This means earlier and
later in the progressive bisection. That bisection goes on to infinity and in fact
generates all the Cantors levels of infinitites up to absolute infinity which is
incomprehensible. It also naturally generates the opposite of infinity which are the
infinitesimals. But the counter intuitive aspect of the surreals is that they do no
integrate. This is to say that they are also filled with holes that separate the finite
from the infinite. These holes prevent integration with surreal numbers. This is seen
as a defect by mathematicians. But is instead a positive characteristics as these
holes are the representation of the void within the substrate of illusory continuity.
1327
The illusory continuity in this case is the infinitudes that are separated from the
discrete finitudes by the void sandwiched in between them as an interspace. We can
take these holes or ghosts as they have been called and manipulate them as if they
were numbers because their position within the progressive bisection is well
defined. And we can do something more. We can take the whole surface of the
surreals treat them like dimensional axes with fractal dimension. So they form a
surface of peaks and valleys. The peaks are the infinities and the valleys are the
infinitesimals. These peaks and valleys may define irrational numbers OR
transcendental numbers. The ones that correspond to transcendental numbers harbor
an infinite amount of information just like a strange attractor. So we can see the
myriad transcendentals as strange attractors on the surface of the surreals. We can
make a mapping between the peaks or between the valleys or between peak and
valley to create a strange multiply connected surface out of the surreals. We can
extend this multiply connected surface by mapping holes in it to other holes. In this
way we produce an image of the general economy that is made up of many
increasing or decreasing positive feedback loops represented by the peaks and
valleys. And we can see that tori within this surface might be seen as the connected
holes. So the general economy of the multiply connected surreal surface, in what
ever dimension, contains many tori representing the infolding and unfolding of the
Kosmic Atom within the bizarre landscape of miracles and black holes that define
meta-system.
Now if we look carefully at this multiply connected fractal surface we see that it is
possible to imagine connecting peaks or valleys to holes by some mapping. If we
did that then we would produce directly an image of the dissipative system that
introduces order from nowhere. In other words the infinite information of the
transcendental would be seen as pouring through the hole into the multiply
connected surface. This natural image of the dissipative system allows us to
construct images of the autopoietic and reflexive system by merely following the
Cayley-Dickson process as it goes through its symmetry breaking and noting the
properties of the algebras that produces. Thus out of the field of Wild Being imaged
here by the Surreals we find the division algebras that are related to our special
systems appearing in a very natural manner.
Now we imagine the surreal qualitative/quantitative soup being contained within

Laws of Form aspects. But as noted in previous working papers the Laws of Form
has a dual called by the author the Laws of Pattern that takes the exact opposite
axioms. One of these two dual systems support Kaufmann addition. The other
1328
supports the reading and writing operations of the turing machine. Thus implicit
within the Laws of Form/Pattern are both the rudiments of mathematics of form and
computational manipulation based on algorithms. This computational form has
already been explained in terms of Turing machines with mobius strips for tapes
and for communication channels with each other. The Universal Turing Machine
(UTM) that encompasses all these specific Turing Machines (TM) is the image of
the Meta-System that supports multiple systems within it like an operating system
supports applications. In this way we see that we have two images of the Meta-
system: either as Universal Turing Machine or as multiply connected surface within
the surreals. What is the tapes of the individual turing machines are the mapping
from peaks to valleys or valleys to valleys or peaks to peaks or holes to peaks or
holes to valleys in the multiply connected surface. Thus we have dual images of the
Meta-system and its encompassing of systems. In the multiply connected surface
the system can be related to the finite numbers.
The mapping between foci on the multiply connected surface or the

communication channels between TM actors within spacetime can be seen as
Random in the sense of Goertzel, i.e. perhaps an ordered pattern beyond our
comprehension. This random component represents a propensity or tendency. The
propensity is a multiplication of fuzziness times probability. It is what turns a
possibility into a actuality that can be seen to have a probability. It is the same thing
that we see in the "line of flight" (cf Deleuze and Guattari) of points on the complex
plane that give us the Mandelbrot set. It is a chaotic spin that is given to seeds of
eventities as they fructify out of the full void which makes them actualize this
possibility and turn it into that probability rather than some other one of the myriad
possibilities. The structure of the Laws of Form/Pattern that closes around the
multiply connected surface of the surreals gives us a synergy of the meta-levels of
Being. When ever such a synergy of all four meta-levels of Being appear THERE
we see the face of the Kosmic Atom pointing toward the boundary between form
and no-form. In fact we can see that the structure of the Laws of Form/Pattern
actually encompasses the multiply connected surreal surface and then churns it with
the jumps of Hyper Being. Each surreal trapped by the relation between process and
presence is a point in the multiply connected surface that is walled off and related to
other points in other pockets of the laws of form equation. Thus we can see
immediately that the laws of form equation IS the mapping of the multiply
connected multi-dimensional surreal surface created from myriads of progressive
bisections. The map is made dynamic by the presence of Hyper Being
discontinuous jumps.
1329
This model allows us to imagine Emergent Meta-System components as strings of

mapping formulas that connect parts of the multiply connected surreal surface to
each other along with some binary vectors and Matrix Logic operators that
designate these maps as having some degree of truth, reality, identity or self-
reference.
Emergent Meta-System Component (EMSC)
1. Laws of Form/Pattern string of terms containing qualitative/quantitative

surreal numbers
Figure 289:
<< \/ /\ > \/ /\ \/ > < \/ /\ >
2. Terms of Matrix Logic operators and binary vectors related to truth,

reality, identity or self-reference.
Figure 290:
_ _
R R
[T: -1,0] L 1 L [I:1,2] L j
0 0
- -
T=truth
R=reality
I=identity
L = one of the sixteen Perician Logical Operations

defined in Matrix Logic by truth table matrix operating
or bras and kets.
Operations are always quaternionic in that with labeled

bras and kets identified with T, I, or R any two will
produce the third kind following quaternion rules.
Figure 291:
-1= hidden
1,1 = contradiction = para-consistency
1,0 = truth
0,1 = false
1330
i = self-reference for Truth

j = self-reference for Reality
k = self-reference for Identity
3. Recognition operators.
EMSCs can recognize patterns via context free grammars in either of the
strings 1 and 2 above.
4. Writing operators.
EMSCs can write seeds to the full void and they can also write to a Linda-
like tuple space called just for fun the Akkashic record.
5. Mutual Action operators EMSCs can act on each other and themselves
with non-commutative or commutative actions.
6. Gestalt Pattern formation operators. EMSCs can create patterns with

other EMSCs.
7. Nomination Operators EMSCs can nominate other EMSCs and anti-

EMSCs to their mutual potential space.
8. Creation and Annihilation operators EMSCs can be created by

reproduction and destroyed externally to the swarm. Destruction
internal to the swarm must be via political action in the nomination
and voting process.
9. Actor-like message queue and modes. EMSCs can act like Agha-like
ACTORS in a computational space.
10. Swarm operators. EMSCs can contain swarms of EMSCS.
11. Environmental operators. EMSCs can have an effect on their

environment taking resources and producing other effects.
SWARMS
1331
1. Swarms can create levels and multiplicities either in spacetime or at meta-

levels of nothing in the nowhere.
2. Swarms can move from one Goertzel's SEE nodes to another. These are
equivalent to computational environmental spaces.
3. Swarms can nominate EMSCs and anti-EMSCs to influence voting

patterns.
This gives us a good introduction to the architecture of the Emergent Meta-

Systems. It will have to be elaborated thorough creating a specific Evolving
Algebra form for the components and the swarm. But generally we will follow the
insights we have had in previous working papers into the Heideggarian Fourfold
and its relation to the Cayley-Dickson process for creating the Special Systems
based on an analogy with the Division Algebras.
To be precise we will begin with the aspects of the Laws of Form/Pattern identified
by Spencer-Brown. These are as follows:
Figure 292:
something <>
nothing zilch
layering <<>>
multiplicity <><>
Laws of form contain the following axioms:

<><> := <>
<<>> := zilch
The complementary Laws of Pattern axioms have the form:

<><> := zilch
<<>> := <>
We need meta-operators to show when laws of form or laws of pattern rules are in
force. We will use braces "{}" to denote laws of pattern rules as they are rare.
Figure 293:
1332
laws of form : laws of pattern : laws of form

< < \/ \/ /\ > { < /\ > < /\ \/ > } \/ /\ /\ \/ >
These set up two very different patterns of relations between the aspects one
affirming multiplicity and the other affirming layering. But we are specifically
interested not in the relations of transcendence or immanence but instead in the
conjunctions of these aspects. Therefore we treat them in a context of the Emergent
Meta-System operators
Figure 294:
~ creation, continuity
! annihilation, cancellation
| mutual action ("-|" left action; "|-" right action)
# pattern formation (using parens to associate)
We can follow Spencer-Brown and use variables within Laws of Form equations
with the proviso that a small letter will be filled with a surreal value and considered
an individual of a certain kind, whereas a big letter will be filled with another Laws
of Form equation and will represent an essence.
This way we can define the following operations on the Reserve "R":
Figure 295:
~R := A is the production of a class.
~R := a is the production of an individual existent.
These classes or individuals are orthogonal to all others that exist at that moment.
So these terms are equal to the following:
Figure 296:
*!*~R := A or a
*|*~R := A or a
*#*~R := A or a
We can go on to look at the following operations:

Figure 297:
A~B := C; A and B together form a continuity C
A!B := C; A annihilates B with side effect C
A|B := C; A acts on B creating quantum of action C
A#B := C; A and B form a gestalt C
Each of these are an instance of artificial emergence in some realm of causation.
1333
Chiasmic or Analogical emergence can be show in the following way:

Figure 298:
A!B~R := C; A annihilates B but creates side effect C
A|B~R := C; A acts on B but creates quantum of action C
A#B~R := C; A forms gestalt with B through some emergent novelty
Single operators also have meaning:

Figure 299:
~A := C; Finite A forms a continuity becoming infinite as C
!A := C; A transforms into its antithetical opposite C
|A := C; A acts on itself to create C -- self-organization
#A := C; A forms a gestalt with itself which is C -- reflection
When we add these operators to the mixture of the multiply connected surface by
the laws of form/pattern then we get a very interesting mixture indeed.
Figure 300:
<<A>B>!<C<D>B<A>>#<<<E>F><A>>
|_________________|
{ < < < < A > |- < B > > A > D > } ~ N < A > < B > # < < C > >
As you can see from this example very complex formula can be build up and then
given truth, reality, identity, and self-reference values. These values can be fuzzy as
shown by August Stern when a partial truth value is assigned between zero and one.
And by creating random strings we can render these combinations of terms
probabilistic as well achieving quantum computational power.
This renders Emergent Meta-sysems fairly complex. But we are driven to that
complexity by our wishing to model the form of the Kosmic Atom based on the
insight that the division algebras are the ultimate form of the Heideggarian fourfold
and wishing to place that in the context of meta-systems instead of systems.
However, taken together the formalism is very well defined in its broad outlines.
We will wait until we have defined it via evolving algebras before we will claim
that it is well defined.
6. Emergent Meta-Systems and Systems and Software Methodologies
It has been noted above that there is a modality of the Emergent Meta-System that
1334
is related to interacting turing machines. This aspect has been explored in depth in
previous working papers. It has been shown that the Software Design Minimal
Methods are slices of a Turing Machine. It has also been proved that certain
combinations of minimal methods are dissipative in structure and that they can
combine to make 6 autopoietic virtual combinations and 15 reflexive virtual
combinations. Three of the reflexive virtual combinations are ultra-efficient,
forming a set of of ultra-efficient worlds with the form of the quaternions. Now we
extend this line of inquiry by showing that there is a way to look at the minimal
methods in terms of the Emergent Meta-system formation. This unique viewpoint
on the minimal methods from the EMS has far reaching implications. It gives an
immediate value to the EMS in a practical realm of systems engineering and
software engineering requirements and design. This is an important area of ongoing
research due to the fact that systems and their software components are growing in
complexity all the time in spite of the fact that humans are having difficult
producing systems at the current level of complexity. The dream is to have
automated design and requirements systems that make this almost impossible job of
creating reliable, fault-tolerant, safe embedded real-time software and hardware
systems. We have taken some steps in the direction of defining the four views and
sixteen minimal methods for software and systems design of distributed real-time
systems. Finding that these minimal methods which were embodiments of
information in spacetime are actually slices of a turing machine helped explain the
efficacy of design methods in general. And discovering that these same methods
that are split between partially ordered and fully ordered viewpoints have a
synergetic mode that bridges that gap gives us hope of someday producing effective
designs. However, our dream is to produce a version of the minimal methods that
will allow us to fully explore the design landscape looking for optimal designs. This
is where the connection to Emergent Meta-systems may have its efficacy.
The first point to note is that most of the minimal methods provide a web of
external relations between elements that represent the design of a system. But we
note that the Laws of Form/Pattern give us a different kind of model stripped of
relations in which each EMS component is independent and relationless within the
swarm encapsulated in a grid of levels and multiplicities. The components exist like
Leibnizian monads within individual cells of the fourfold. Thus we are called to call
into question the establishment of explicit external relations. And in fact Evolving
Algebras take exactly this mode in their specification of systems, in which relations
are reduced to signatures of functions instead of explicit external constructs. So we
have some hint that there is a way to posit relations without creating external links
1335
that form a web between monads separated externally by a grid. Within the ISEM
languages created by the author this Grid is four-dimensional containing Layers,
Strata, Partitions and Tiers. The generic term would be a Plateau. A single
architectural element would exist at an intersection of multidimensional plateaus
that form the rhizome (using the terminology of Deleuze and Guattari in A
Thousand Plateaus) of the design. But as in ISEM the natural inclination is to create
external relationships between nodes within the rhizome to produce the
architecture. But Emergent Meta-Systems point us toward another possibility that
needs to be explored.
If we look at the minimal methods we notice that each dissipative pair of methods:
Figure 301:
DATAFLOW/Petri Net - State Machine
Mapping - Virtual Layered Machine / DARTS
DARTS / Information flow - network - Value flow global - local
Worldline - Scenario / Petri Net - State Machine
Contain some element that has no external relations to establish:

Figure 302:
TASKS alone
Virtual Layered Machine Instructions alone
Worldlines alone
State Machines alone
Variable alone We can take these aspects of the minimal methods and construct a
model of Emergent Meta-System agency that builds not external relations. We note
that this model emphasizes autonomy. It is composed of a worldline through
spacetime of a task that embodies a state machine which fires VLM instructions.
This machine would have its own internal variables that it updated itself as it
executed. We can imagine such a machine as independent and operating without
relation to anything else within the swarm. What is interesting is that every other
minimal method establishes relations between different kinds of design elements.
But each dissipative set of minimal methods is associated with certain elements that
operate independently and that taken together give us a computational model that is
complete. This then is how we imagine the Emergent Meta-System components to
be operationalized computationally. There is the multi-dimensional grid or rhizome
of the swarm and within it there are individual cells that computationally are
completely independent. What is striking is that these individual EMSCs resonate
1336
together to form the higher level entity of the swarm despite their independence. We
can only imagine that happen if we can see that the different components
experience time moving backwards so that they can synchronize with the actions of
other components in the swarm. Thus the swarm like a school of fish moves "as if"
it were one organism.
Now what we want to describe is how these EMS components may be seen to posit
internal relationships that replace the normal internal relationships in an
architectural design. If the swarm had external relations between components then
the structure would be frozen and static. But instead each Agent projects a set of
internal relations between itself and other entities within the system architecture.
This allows for dynamism and change as the projections of structural coherence
change. And it allows the projection of the entire system to be social as the
projections of each of the agents are combined to give an overall projection. This is
accomplished in the following fashion. The agents form a hierarchy of agency.
Each agent in the hierarchy projects through functions relationships with other
system design elements specified by the minimal methods, such as:
Figure 303:
dataflow bubbles
datastores
places of petri nets
communication mechanisms
semaphores
mapping nodes
variables
values
dataflow bubbles datastores places of petri nets communication mechanisms

semaphores mapping nodes variables values
A specific agent will see so many objects from these classes and will specify a
relation exists between them and it using a Lano N^2 diagram. It will also posit that
relations exist between elements it can see from its perspective using the same
device.
Figure 304:
A 011001
0 X11011
0 1X1100
1337
1 10X101
1 101X01
1 1010X1
1 10101X
Here the A stands for an agent at some stage in the hierarchy and the X a design
element to which that agent has an internal relation. All the Xs stand for design
elements that this Agent can see. It may posit relations between elements that it has
no explicit relation to itself if it can see that design element from its limited
viewpoint.
Now each agent in the hierarchy of agency will have a set projection squares like
this for each kind of architectural element that can exist with relations in the
minimal methods. And each level of the agent hierarchy will have a narrower and
narrower view. The narrowest view will be a leaf level agent that will project
relations on only one kind of element from each type of architectural element, or
just a few of different types. or perhaps just one. These signatures would look like
this:
Figure 305:
X1
0X
There would be one such minimal table for each type of design element that a leaf
node agent might have a relation to or be positing a relation between two different
elements. So for instance we might have:
Figure 306:
A1 d1 A1 f10 A1 s11
0d 1d 1f 0f1 1s 0s1
11f 11s
where d = datastore, f = function, and s = semaphore all
specific design objects.
This minimal signature of an leaf node agent will posit some relations between
itself and other design elements as well as projecting some relations between other
design elements. Higher level Agents that encompass leaf nodes will have a more
global view and will have relations to more external design elements and project
more relations between design elements. But the views are always specific to a
particular agent and from its perspective rather than an external objective view.
1338
Thus we can apply Jumarie's concept of relativistic information in System

Information And Subject to the relation between viewpoints of Agents. The
objective view is the generalization of all the agent views rather than an ideal view.
For this reason we can see it as a social projection of all the agents in the swarm
(architectural grid) working together. And we would see each external relation
between design elements as fuzzy because each is build up from the individual
views of agents.
Any given system would have the following aspects:

1) A set of design elements of different types each in its own universe, to use
EA terminology.
2) The grid or swarm of agents that are Emergent Meta-System Components
3) The hierarchy of sub-agents within higher level agents that have more and
more fragmented views of the design elements.
4) The minimal agents that can only see one design element from each
universe.
5) The signature of projected binary relations by the agent.
6) The fuzzy relations between design elements from the external view that
find the max and min of the partial views of the system that may be in
disagree with each other.
Now when we look at the signature of an individual leaf agent in its projection of
relations between itself and others or just between others we can think of this agent
as being created by a genetic algorithm. As such we can apply Kauffman's NK
model of the design landscape. In this model each node is a particular permutation
of possible attributes. We can relate that to the signature of relations of the leaf
agents. We can imagine these leaf agents being created by a Genetic Algorithm
such as that described by John Holland in HIDDEN ORDER. In that process each
leaf agent would posit connections between itself and other design elements or just
between other design elements. Such an agent could have those signatures mutated
or crossed through the the genetic algorithm complex adaptive evolutionary
process. Multiple agents projecting different internal relations could be produced
and could be tried against the fitness criteria of the NK design landscape. Fitness
criteria are tied to each node of the NK landscape. These fitness criteria could be
seen as derived from Requirements modeling. The cumulatively most fit agents
would tend to survive and the whole system would converge on a socially agreed
upon architecture for the system whose external representation would become less
1339
and less fuzzy as time went on and evolution according to the GA progressed. So
we see here that the GA production of agents with minimal signatures is
probabilistic as described by Kauffman while the external system structure is fuzzy
that is seen from the viewpoint of an ideal external observer (the designer with a
God's Eye view). The fitness numbers would then be seen as propensities that
connect the probabilities to the possibilities. Fitness numbers represent external
constraints but translated into propensities or tendencies that guide the evolution of
the system itself as it designs itself thorough the interaction of Emergent Meta-
System components.
This view of design sees the system through the eyes of the individual agents where
lower level agents can see less and less of the entire system. It takes for granted that
each agent has its own viewpoint on the system and will perhaps see some
connections that no other agent can see either between itself and other components
or just between other components. If we acknowledge that these minimal agents can
be produced by a Genetic Algorithm and that they can have fitness related to the
fitness of the nodes in the design landscape then we can see the system evolving a
design using the crossover and mutation aspects of the GA. We can always see the
external view of the system design in terms of fuzzy relations that maximize and
minimize all together the relations posited by a the agents working as a social group
within the swarm. The swarm itself goes through its discontinuous EMS lifecycle as
part of the Genetic Algorithm. In this way the physical architecture would adapt
itself to the functional architecture progressively and design elements would come
to have their final architectural relations thought the build up of fuzzy relations as a
side effect of the requirements constraints.
In this way we can get a vision of how the Emergent Meta-Systems can be applied
directly to the pressing problem of how Software and Systems Engineering Design
is accomplished. Because we do not assume continuity we can imagine how a
punctuated equilibrium form of evolution of physical agents can adapt themselves
to a functional architecture to produce a perhaps optimal physical architecture of a
system all based on the internal projection of relations rather than the external
projection by a designer (acting as God). That internal projection of relations would
be done as Evolving Algebras suggest using the signatures of functions. In other
words relations can easily be posited using N^2 matrices in which the existence of a
relation is produced by marking an intersection point. Opposite directional relations
are created by marking complementary intersections within the matrix. We can also
imagine how agents can be seen to interpenetrate. That is accomplished by allowing
1340
their set of operators to interleave. Thus when an agent is created it may combine a
set of operations taken from its parents. A certain set of operations are atomic and
others are cascades of sets of operators which can following KOZA in GENETIC
PROGRAMMING may form evolving algorithms. So we can see not just the
projection of relations of an agent evolving but the algorithmic aspect evolving also.
Similarly the attributes associated with an EMS component could be crossed and
mutated as well. Thus all aspects of the Evolving Meta-System Component can be
seen to take part in the Genetic Algorithm Evolution.
But now we come to interpreting the Laws of Form/Pattern, Surreal Numbers, and
Emergent Meta-System operators strings in the context of the methods as we must
the use of matrix logic itself. These formalisms that we bring together to give
structure to the Emergent Meta-System concept need to be understood within this
new context. First we note that the surreal numbers can represent quality or
quantity. But we have seen that the signatures of internal relation projection appears
as N^2 Lano diagrams while the posting of overlapping operators in a KOZA style
Genetic Programming takes the form of 2^N were we get the interpenetration of
operator sets. This means that the static relational structure is quantitative in design
while the behavioral structure is qualitative in design. These two come together in
the positing of the design landscape using the NK model of Kauffman. So we can
see that it is the fitness numbers attached to the landscape nodes that are the best
candidates for being represented by the surreal numbers. These fitness numbers are
neither associated directly with operations or relations. They represent propensities
or tendencies that arise based on external constraints. Fitness numbers form a field
associated with each point in the landscape. There may be a vector of such fitness
numbers associated with different dimensions of the field. The laws of form
encompass these fitness vectors represented as surreal numbers. The laws of form/
pattern allow us to construct patterns of fitness vectors from across the field. This
means that individual agents can use these expressions to look for optima in which
the vectors of fitness values are best. The laws of form may be used to connect and
manipulate these surreal fitness vectors in equations of embedding and connected
multiplicities. We can link these filled laws of form/pattern equations via the EMS
operators. They can be created and canceled, they can form patterns and mutually
interact. These terms within the whole swarm can follow the course of the proof
process as the proofs are continually proved on the whole set of EMS components.
This is done by associating the terms that capture the relations between fitness
values with identity, truth and reality vectors that relate them to the Evolving
Algebra Reserve. This gives us a view of the EMS manipulating the multi-
1341
dimensional fitness vectors that appear over the NK design landscape and
connecting that with the evolving of the algorithms via the operations and the
internally projected relations.
Such a system if realized would be very sophisticated and would make possible the
evolution of physical architectures using the Genetic Algorithms to adapt agents
projecting internal relations, developing genetic programs and manipulating fitness
vectors on the design landscape within functional and requirements constraints.
Whether such a system could be realized is up in the air. But at least we have a
vision of how the EMS structure could be implemented to solve the practical
problem of evolving system and software architectural designs and this allows the
abstract EMS structure to be seen in the context of more concrete yet still abstract
Software Design Methods. This calls for a radical rethinking of how we design such
systems and the role of agency in those systems which may be to far reaching to be
considered do able at our current state of technology. However, this vision of the
implementation of an EMS in the domain of architectural design evolution allows
us to see more specifically how an EMS functions within a specific context. It has
been shown in a separate paper how Magician SGSs are duals of General Systems
Theory constructs such as those of Klir in Architecture Of Systems Problem
Solving. Emergent Meta-systems are merely an extension of Magician SGSs that
take into account radical emergence. Since it has also been shown that Software
Design Methods are the dual of General Systems Theory as well we could expect to
find a connection between EMSs and Design methods. And in fact we have now
shown that such a connection is plausible even though there are lots of details to
work out. And interestingly enough this connection gives us a completely different
way of viewing the relation of physical to functional design of systems that suggests
that architectural evolution systems are possible using GAs.
7. A definition of EMS components in Swarms.
The following definition of a swarm is based on the concept that swarms contain
monads and that monads exist within a Grid within a swarm, and that monads in
turn contain swarms. The grid is a Cartesian coordinate scheme that is four
dimensional producing a series of places for monads to exist. Here it is assumed
that EMS components are modeled in terms of Computational Monads. For an
explanation see the ISEM2 working papers series that this definition is taken from.
1342
The definition follows the general form of PVS language from SRI.
Figure 307:
swarm [sw: TYPE] : THEORY -- meta-system
BEGIN
grid: TYPE -- four dimensional grid
component: TYPE -- SGS element as system within
metasystem
plateau: TYPE -- dimension of grid
node: TYPE -- intersection of dimensions
action: TYPE -- action of monad
tuple: TYPE -- tuple space of swarm
talk: TYPE -- talk space of swarm
list: TYPE -- a hyperlist
same as hyperset (i.e.
non-well-founded set) plus
ability to have repeated
members with an order
chiasm: TYPE -- source of quality and
quantity
position: TYPE FROM list -- place in a list
monad: TYPE FROM component -- computational monad
seed: TYPE FROM component -- germ of a monad
viewpoint: TYPE FROM compoent -- interiorized monad
candidate: TYPE FROM component -- nominated monad
level: TYPE FROM plateau -- a dimension
partition: TYPE FROM plateau -- a dimension
strata: TYPE FROM plateau -- a dimension
tier: TYPE FROM plateau -- a dimension
quality TYPE FROM chiasm -- source of truth, reality,
identity in the reserve
quantity TYPE FROM chiasm -- source of presence/absence
in appearances
truth: TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena
falsehood: TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena
reality: TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena
fantasy: TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena
1343
idenity TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena

difference TYPE FROM quality -- a quality of the noumena
presence TYPE FROM quantity -- a quantity of the phenomenal

absence TYPE FROM quantity -- a quantity of the phenomenal
lv: VAR level -- variable of a dimension
pr: VAR partition -- variable of a dimension
st: VAR strata -- variable of a dimension
tr: VAR tier -- variable of a dimension
m, n, o: VAR monad -- specific instances of
s: VAR seed -- potential monad
v: VAR viewpoint -- viewpoint monad
c: VAR monad candidate -- candidate monad
nil: VAR monad -- zilch monad
R: VAR monad -- reserve monad
(cf Evolving Algebras'
Reserve)
g: VAR grid -- specific instance of grid
a, b, x: VAR action -- particular action
nd: VAR node -- specific node
gab: VAR talk -- specific speech
tup: VAR tuple -- specific tuple
lst: VAR list -- specific list
ps: VAR position -- specific position
p: VAR presence -- specific presence
t: VAR truth -- specific truth
r: VAR reality -- specific reality
i: VAR idenity -- specific identity
: VAR quality -- specific noumena
-p: VAR absence -- lack of presence
-r: VAR fantasy -- lack of reality
-t: VAR falsehood -- lack of truth
-i: VAR difference -- lack of idenity
-z: VAR monad -- lack of noumena = phenomena

transform: [ s -> m ] -- reflect seed into monad
transform: [ m -> v ] -- reflect monad into viewpoint
transform: [ v -> c ] -- reflect viewpoint into candidate
transform: [ c -> s ] -- reflect candidate into seed
1344
mosaic: [ lv X pr X st X tr -> g ] -- all node addresses in

grid
collage: [ g -> lst ] -- all nodes to hyperlist

place: [ lv, pr, st, tr, m -> nd ] -- place monad in node
decomp: [ m -> sw ] -- decompose monad into swarm
comp: [ sw -> lst ] -- compose swarm into members
select: [ ps, lst -> m ] -- select monad from list
mesh: [lv, pr, st, tr] -> m ] -- address monad in grid
%: [ m -> boolean ] -- absence operator
%m: [m -> false ] -- make monad absent
%%m: [m -> true ] -- make monad present
present: [ %%m -> nd ] -- monad present in grid node
absence: [ %m -> nd ] -- monad absent in grid node
empty: [ nil -> nd ] -- grid node empty
~: [ R X m -> m ] -- creation operator gives any
monad from out of field
~m: [ nil -> m ] -- creation operator gives
monad
m~n: [ m, m -> m ] -- continuity produces new
monad
!: [ nil -> nil, a ] -- annihilation operator gives
side effect out of field
!m: [ EXIST m -> nil, a ] -- unique annihilation
m!n: [ m, n -> nil, a ] -- mutual annihilation with
side effect
|: [ nil -> a ] -- mutual action gives action
out of any field
|m: [ R X m -> a ] -- mutual action de-reifies
monad
m|n: [ m, n -> a ] -- mutual action produces
action
ma|nb: [ m, a, n, b -> x ] -- specific actions of specific
monads produces action
#: [ nil -> sw + a ] -- gestalt pattern formation
operator produces swarm minus
side effect action out of
field
1345
#m: [EXIST m -> sw + a ] -- gestalt pattern formation

produces swarm plus action
supplement from one monad
m#n: [ m, n -> sw + a ] -- gestalt pattern formation
swarm plus action supplement
from two monads
command: [ gab -> a ] -- talk becomes action
describe: [ tup -> a ] -- tuple picture becomes action
liquify: [ m -> a ] -- monad becomes operator
boast: [ a -> gab ] -- action becomes talk
paint: [ a -> tup ] -- action becomes painting
reify: [ a -> m ] -- action becomes operand
enscribe: [ gab -> tup ] -- talk becomes written tuple
solifify: [ gab -> m ] -- talk becomes monad
enunciate: [ tup -> gab ] -- written tuple becomes talk
carve: [ tup -> m ] -- written tuple becomes a monad
write: [ gab -> R ] -- write something to the
reserve
shout: [ gab -> sw ] -- talk to the swarm
listen: [ R -> gab ] -- listen to something from the
reserve
socialtalk: [ sw -> gab ] -- listen to the talk of the
swarm
castaway: [ tup -> R ] -- write a tuple to tuplespace
broadcast: [ tup -> sw ] -- send a tuple to whole swarm
reelin: [ R -> tup ] -- get a tuple from tuplespace
deliver: [ sw -> tup ] -- take a tuple from the swarm
karmic: [ a -> R ] -- action goes to reserve
effect: [ a -> sw ] -- action goes to swarm
cause: [ R -> a ] -- action comes out of reserve
groupact: [ sw -> a ] -- action comes out of swarm
emerge: [ R -> m ] -- monad comes out of reserve
see also (~m)
skew: [ sw -> m ] -- monad comes out of swarm
annihilate: [ m -> R ] -- monad destroyed see also (!m)
eclipse: [ m -> sw ] -- hide monad in swarm
recognize: [ sw -> lst ] -- recognize a swarm pattern
nominate: [ SOME m AND SOME -m -> lst ] -- nominate candidates
vote(lst): [ lst -> nil, R X seed ] -- annihilate candidates
1346
fructify: [ R X seed -> m ] -- fructify seeds into monads

become: [ t, r -> i ]
become: [ t, i -> r ]
become: [ i, t -> -r ]
become: [ i, r -> t ]
become: [ r, i -> -t ]
become: [ r, t -> -i ]
become: [ t, r, i -> -z ]
become: [ -t, -r, -i ] -> z ]
become: [ z -> t, r, i ]
become: [ -z -> -t, -r, -i ]
amalgmate: [ -z -> m ]
amalgmate: [ z -> -m ]
END swarm
It is important to note that the EMS operators are complementary duals and that the
two dual operators are duals of each other.
Figure 308:
~ == ! dual
||
|| --------- dual duals
||
# == | dual
The main difference between the two duals is that in the first the two elements that
are operated on disappear in the operation whereas in the second the elemetns that
undergo the operation continue to stand after their effect has been created.
Thus the creation operator produces a continuity out of two elements into which
they vanish whereas the gestalt pattern formation operators does not destroy the
elements that produce the gestalt. Similarly the annihilation operator destroys the
two elements that are annihilated even if they produce a side-effect. On the other
hand the mutual action operator leaves the monads that act on each other intact even
as it produces the effect of their combined action. This dual duality is very
important and is similar to the duality property recently adumbrated in String theory
in physics. Meta-duals express non-duality as do meta-complementarities.
1347
Also in this definition we see that there must be intertransformation between

action, talk, monads, and writing tuples. This intertransformation is very important.
It allows us to consider the compoents that arise within the field of propensities to
transform as they fall back into it.
Another point is that the Reserve is considered only a reserve for computational
monads in this definition but we assert that the Reserve is still a threefold relating to
idenity, truth and reality as posited before. It is impossible to have a full reserve
under the PVS language.
Note that presence/absence is the other fundamental distinction that goes along
with those in the reserve between idenity/difference, truth/falsehood, reality/
fantasy.
8. Mirroring of the Emergent Meta-System
One of the major mysteries of the theory of interpenetration is how the seeds of the
next moment are impregnated in the full void in order to fructify in the next
moment. As soon as one posits perfect discontinuity this becomes a major
theoretical problem. And of course it is solved by positing the Alaya-vijyana or
store house consciousness, which is a special realm that escapes the slice of the
discontinuity. But this theoretical slide of hand is always unsatisfactory as it begs
the question as how the radical discontinuity between lifecycles of the Emergent
Meta-System is bridged. There is another answer that must be considered. That is
nothing crosses the line of radical discontinuity. Instead there is merely a mirroring
of elements across the discontinuity. That is to say that the realms that are being
divided by the discontinuity are mirrors. All that crosses the divide are reflections
of the things in any one realm into another realm. This is a simple answer that
preserves the radical discontinuity and accords well with our model of the
quaternions and octonions as reflections. In fact we have posited that the
quaternions are reflections in three vertical mirrors and that the octonion are
internal reflections in four tetrahedrally configured mirrors. Here we extend this
analogy by positing four mirrors that are arranged in the form of a cube. We note
that Shea Zellweger has shown that logic has a mirror formation using four mirrors
as well. In that case the four mirrors are arranged such that three of the mirrors form
an xyz axis and the fourth mirror crosses this obliquely. This arrangement gives the
group structure D4XC2. It allows you to do logical manipulations merely by noting
the reflections of Zellweger's Logic Alphabet in the four mirrors. We note also that
1348
if we take these same mirrors and create an inwardly mirroring tetrahedron we get
the octonion mirroring which is based on the Vector Equilibria. Similarly if we
arrange the mirrors in a cube then the mirroring between the mirror surfaces within
the cube gives us the kind of mirroring that we propose connects the four different
phases of the EMS lifecycle.
Figure 309:
"|"
/\
A /____\ B
/ | / | \
"~"/ |\ | \ "#"
\ | \| /
\ | / | /
D \----/ C
\/
"!"
The outer square is the configuration of the mirrors in a cubic formation. The inner
rectangle is the reflecting light which is going around in a clockwise direction.
Vertices of the outer cube of mirrors are the EMS meta-algebraic operators. Mirrors
are labeled A, B, C and D. These correspond to separate phases of the lifecycle of
the EMS. Only the reflections move across boundaries. Actual objects do not move
across radical discontinuities between mirrors. Each phase of the lifecycle
corresponds to a different meta-level of Being.
Figure 310:
Mirror A is actualization of monads via probability (Procss Being)
Mirror B is internalization of viewpoints via determinants (Pure Presence).
Mirror C is nomination and voting on candidates via possibility (Hyper Being).
Mirror D is insemination of seeds via propensity (Wild Being).
The transition between each mirror is related to one of the meta-algebraic operators
related to the EMS structure.
Figure 311:
Creation governs the transition between seeds and actualized monads.
Mutual Action governs the transition between monads and internalized
viewpoints.
Gestalt Pattern Formation governs the transition between viewpoints and
nominated candidates
Annihilation governs the transition between Voted on Candidates and the
1349
odd left over successful candidates that become seeds in the next
generation of the lifecycle.
We start with the seeds and notice that the seeds form a mosaic or collage whole
which we might name the pod. Seeds fructify when the Creation operator is applied
to them. They represent propensities in the full void. These propensities appear
within Wild Being. When the seeds fructify then actualized computational monads
develop which are governed by probabilities. These probabilities are embodied in
Process Being. The monads form a swarm. The monads interact with each other
through the Mutual Action operator. Through this interaction they each get a view
of the response of the other monads to each of them individually. This causes them
to become introspective and develop into viewpoints. Each viewpoint forms a
separate opinion as to the relations that hold within the swarm. The viewpoints form
a constellation. Each viewpoint in the swarm forms a picture of the pattern within
the swarm. This pattern may be different from each vantage point. The different
pictures are produced via the gestalt pattern formation operator. Each observer with
his viewpoint expresses his opinion as to what the next configuration of the swarm
should be like by nominating candidates for the next lifecycle spiral. These
potential candidates attempt to persuade the other monads that they should exist.
Then when all the nominations have been made the annihilation operator is applied.
All those candidates that are odd survive the annihilation. The swarm itself may
produce wild card candidates in order to skew the election. The set of candidates
form a slate. The remaining nominated candidates are reflected in the mirror of
Wild Being and thus become the seeds for the next lifecycle spiral.
Note that at each stage there is a mirroring of the components in the hyperlist and
the application of an operation to the new reflected representation. This application
of the operation moves us on to the next stage in the lifecycle. Nothing ever crosses
the divide from one mirror to the next. Radical discontinuity of the Meta-system is
maintained. Yet the continuous-discontinuous evolution of the Emergent Meta-
System also progresses as it spirals round and round between the mirrors. The
mirroring of components looks like this:
Figure 312:
COMPONENTS COLLAGE/MOSAIC
seeds pod
monad swarm
viewpoints constellation
nominated candidates slate
1350
But between the mirroring of elements there is a transformation introduced by the

meta-algebraic operators between each phase of the spiral.
Now let us be more precise about how this structure unfolds. In each case there is a
connection between the components and the collage/mosaic that they are a part of.
We can use a familiar structure to produce this connection. We note the possibility
of combining the FORM, SIGN, TRACE, NO-TRACE with the distinction between
logos and physus in order to get two wavelike formations for each particle like
formation which then degenerates into an interference pattern on a substrata.
Figure 313:
FORM
particle
/ \
/ \
Logos Physus
wave wave
speech action
sign sign
\ /
\ /
Interference
Trace
writing
chiasm
reversibility
|
|
|
No-trace
Collage/Mosaic
We note that it was necessary to posit the Linda-like (Gelertner) tuple-space and
Cheron-like (Taylor) broadcast of self talk in order to make possible indirect
resonance in our definition of the swarm above. We can relate this distinction to the
direct actions of the components in the swarm. So we immediately get the fact that
when we apply the logos/physus split to the series of Form, sign, trace, no-trace we
get a doubled sign component that relates speech to action and these to the writing
in the tuple space. It was also necessary to posit that actions may be translated into
1351
components, tuples, and self talk. Likewise components may be translated into
actions, tuples and self-talk. Likewise tuples may be translated into actions,
components and self-talk. Likewise self-talk can be translated into actions,
components and actions. In other words all these forms of the monad must be
intertransformable. The intertransformabilty allow us to see how the particle like
system components arise from out of the collage/mosaic metasystemic field.
We may take this further by constructing four such structures based on the
methodological distinctions of Klir, one for each reflective phase.
Figure 314:
seeds
/\
/ \
karma / D \ evolve
\ /
\ /
\/ unfold ------------> next reflection
||
||
||
||
pod
Figure 315:
monads
/\
/ \
speech / A \ action
\ /
\ /
\/write --------------> next reflection
||
||
||
||
swarm
Figure 316:
views
/\
/ \
projection / B \ observation
\ / measurement
\ /
1352
\/ infold ------------> next reflection

||
||
||
||
constellation
Figure 317:
candidates
/\
/ \
persuasion / C \ nomination
\ /
\ /
\/ impregnate ---------> next reflection
|| full void
||
||
||
slate
What this series of structures based on the differentiation of the methodological

distinctions shows is that each moment in the reflective spiral mirrors and
transforms the one before it but in doing so preserves the essential connection
between system and meta-system. Thus the dualism between logos and physus and
the chiasm between them is preserved in each reflection. It is out of the chiasm that
the reflection of the next moment of the spiral is produced. When the transition
between phases of the spiral is made what occurs is an entry into global non-
coherence and non-duality as expressed in the duality between the Penrose-Escher
triangle and the Mobius strip. We must remember that the meta-algebra of the EMS
constitutes a model of the Kosmic Atom. This model as we have seen comprises
several moments. One moment is the seeding of the full void in which the helixes of
the Kosmic Atom intersect. But there is also the movement of the helixes back out
to the periphery and the spiraling of the helixes around each other at the core of the
Kosmic Atom and finally the looping of the helixes at the ends back from the
periphery to the core. These four moments of the structure of the Kosmic Atom,
intersection, turning back in at the periphery, folding through itself at the ends, and
spiraling around each other at the core all define the moments of the process of
reflection. In fact the process of reflection is a more accurate model as it does not
assume that anything moves except the light that reflects within the cube of mirrors.
In fact we can relate them in this way. The chiasms within each reflection falls into
complementary pairs:
1353
Figure 318:
unfold -- infold
write (outward) -- impregnate (inner writing)
We can relate the first of these pairs to the two ends of the Kosmic Atom where it
turns back on itself unfolding from one end and infolding at the other. The second
can be related to the inner spiral of the helixes as they stabilize what is brought into
existence from out of the void. The full void itself can be related to the interference
of the light reflecting within the cube of mirrors. These are the intersection points in
the Kosmic Atom. And the mirrors themselves give us the relation to the outer
spirals of the helix that turn back toward the center giving us the epiphanies of each
chakra. The mirrors relate to the global non-duality and global non-coherence. Thus
when we look at the internal chiasmic structure of the cube of inwardly reflecting
spheres then we see that this structure is isomorphic to the Kosmic Atom. The
mirrors represent the limits in global non-duality non-coherence that causes the
helixes of the Kosmic atom to turn back in on itself giving the various levels of
intersection at the core. The intersections at the core is the general interference
pattern within the inwardly mirroring cube. But within this pattern there are chaisms
between each opposing mirror surface namely unfolding-infolding related to the
ends of the Kosmic Atom and outward and inward writing related to the inward
spiral of the Kosmic Atom. It is the chiasmic or non-dual structure of reversibility,
related to the structure of reversibility in the Greimas cube that we find as our
analogy to the Kosmic Atom. This is because the Kosmic Atom is the archetype for
the arising of forms directly out of the void, i.e. radical emergence. This radical
emergence is caught in the meta-algebra of the Emergent Meta-System.
In China the image of the Kosmic Atom was the Intertwined Dragons within the
mists of the void. In other words there image of the Kosmic Atom was not a dead
geometrical figure but instead a live fantastic beast that attempted to capture the
pulsation of the Kosmic Atom. When we look at The Propensity Of Things by
Francios Jullian we see that the Chinese saw the capturing of the patterning of the
form of no-form as their ultimate aim in all their arts. They expressed this in terms
of the concept of Shi (disposition of propensities). They saw the dragon within the
mist of the void as a field of propensities or tendencies. We have modeled these in
terms of Coutu's TENSIT and have showed that this is a social field oriented toward
the production and recognition of Radical Emergence. We have discovered that the
best model of this structure is the emergent meta-system. The Propensity Of Things
gives a very definite view of how propensities and tendencies of situations defined
the Chinese way of viewing the world as opposed to the causal Western way of
1354
looking at things. The Chinese traditional viewpoint and their sciences are
intrinsically autopoietic in nature. They considered each thing as a closed isolated
system and looked for the irreversible processes that may transform it from within.
This view of things is markedly Alchemical, as it posits a vessel within which a
transformation is triggered if the right set up can be found. Triggering internal
irreversible transformations given a particular set up is the essence of Chinese
science.
We have seen that there are three different configurations of four mirrors that have
significance. There is Shea Zellweger logical computations using mirrors, there is
the tetrahedron of inwardly reflecting mirrors that define the octonion, there is the
cube of inwardly reflecting mirrors that give us the lifecycle of the Emergent Meta-
System. We are brought to wonder by this how many other configurations of
mirrors there might be in the magical mirrorhouse (as defined by Onar Aam). What
we realize is that within the magical mirrorhouse the mirrors assume different
configurations and these configurations of minimal systems of mirrors give us
different characteristics from the mirroring. There may be very many of these
configurations of intersecting mirrors all with different qualities. Each
configuration defines a moment in the interpenetration of Indra's jeweled net.
1355
Thinking The Unthinkable:

Prelude to an Empirical Ontology

PO Box 1632
palmer@exo.com

1. Synoptic View of the Fourfold of Being
Arkady Plotnitsky in his book Complementarities advances the proposition that

multiple complementarities exist and that meta-complementarity is possible. In this
working paper we will consider this assertion and its implications. We assume a
framework of ontology developed over the last twenty or so years called the
Fragmentation of Being. In this analysis of modern ontology we find that Being
which used to be a unitary concept encompassing Reality, Truth, Identity, and
Presencing has become in this century split into four succinct kinds of Being. The
Being of Aristotle, Descartes and Kant and most of the major philosophers before
Husserl were all different interpretations of a single kindless Being that
encompassed everything. The best exposition of this approach to Being is
Brentano's dissertation. Husserl broke ranks when he introduced essence perception
at the heart of phenomenology. Many philosophers including his protege Heidegger
recognized that essence perception had to depend on a different kind of Being than
the traditional kindless Being projected by philosophers. By introducing Time into
perception of kindness Husserl produced a view of the world based on
understanding processes of unfolding rather than static representations. We might
call this Process Being as opposed to Pure Presence. The distinction is fundamental
and is expressed in terms of the definition of the present-at-hand and ready -to-hand
in Being And Time. There was a rewriting of History of philosophy with the
1357
discovery of Process Being as something different from Pure Presence. It became

clear that it was possible to reinterpret the age old difference between Parmenides
and Heraclitus in terms of these two kinds of Being. Once the cleavage in Being
was discovered and it became clear that Being was not kindless, then the gold rush
was on to discover as many different kinds of Being as could be found. It turned out
that four different kinds of Being have been found in Continental Philosophy to
date. The question at stake in this essay is whether a fifth kind of Being is possible.
The exploration of the kindness of Being is the hidden agenda in modern

continental philosophy. When you analyze what different Continental philosophers
have to say about ontology it soon becomes clear that many times they are talking
about the same thing using different terminologies. But also they are making some
crucial distinctions vis a vis the different kinds of Being that are possible and
operative in the world. We are like fish immersed in water within our worldview.
We do not see the water but it is the medium that we live in. Just as within our own
world the air is invisible. Being is the ethereal medium within our Indo-european
worldview. To find out that this ethereal medium has distinctly different kinds after
believing it was purely transparent and kindless all these centuries is surely a
monumental discovery. But this discovery was explored and expressed differently
by the different philosophers that have looked at the constitution of the world. Some
analysis of what this community has to say about Being and its kindness leads to the
definition of four succinct kinds with specific interrelations. I have expressed these
interrelations in terms of a series of Meta-levels:
Pure Presence -- Present-at-hand -- Pointing
This is the Being of Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant as well as most of the
ontologists prior to Husserl except perhaps Heraclitus, and Hegel. Merleau-Ponty in
the Phenomenology Of Perception associates this modality of Being with pointing.
Process Being -- Ready-to-hand -- Grasping
This is the Being of essence perception in Husserl and becomes the major meaning
of Being in Heidegger. Merleau-Ponty in the Phenomenology Of Perception
associates this kind of Being with grasping.
Hyper Being -- [In-hand] -- Bearing
1358
This kind of Being was actually discovered by Heidegger and called -B-e-i-n-g-
(crossed out). It was taken up by Derrida in his early works and called DifferAnce
which is a chiasm of differing and deferring. Michael Henry in The Essence Of
Manifestation pointed out that Heideggers basic assumption was 'ontological
monism' which meant that Process Being and Pure Presence kinds of Being
intertwined to form a closed system that modeled transcendence as self grounding.
He calls the essence of manifestation that which never manifests. A kind of
unconscious in Manifestation similar to the unconscious that Derrida stakes out in
his analysis of texts in which authors lose occasional momentary control. Merleau-
Ponty called this the 'Hyper-dialectic' between Process Being and its inverse
discovered by Sartre called Nothingness. When Process Being and Nothingness
cancel out then the result of this cancellation is Hyper Being. I have dubbed the
associated modality the in-hand. Merleau-Ponty independently discovered it in the
Phenomenology Of Perception when he notes that a blind man or someone who
learns a musical instrument expands there being-in-the-world to encompass that
instrument. The in-hand modality is when we take some tool in-hand and expand
our world. Levinas identified this modality with bearing up under the Other. He
noted that at this level ethics and metaphysics collapse into each other.
Wild Being -- [Out-of-hand] -- [Encompassing]
This Kind of Being was discovered by Merleau-Ponty in The Visible And The
Invisible. This is a book that has had little impact on metaphysics until recently,
mostly due to its sketchy and unfinished state. However, in it Merleau-Ponty delves
into the problem of what is left over when Process Being and Nothingness cancel.
The question is what is left over. He dubbed what is left over Wild Being following
Levi Strauss in the definition of some sort of primitive modality that lies beyond the
pale of normal ontology. He described it in terms of flesh and the chiasma of Touch
Touching.
After him until recently this frontier of Ontology was left unexplored. But recently
it has become the object of interest by contemporary ontologists. Deleuze and
Guattari in Anti-oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus attempt to model it in terms of
the relations between desiring-machines and the socius. They devalue the individual
and attempt to understand him in terms of fragments of self within the field of the
social. The unconscious is called the body-without-organs. They make the
important observation that anything that is related to something else cannot be a
manifestation of the unconscious but has some sort of conscious content. The
1359
unconscious is not all dark but is a locus of intensities. Zero intensity is material
things similar to Sartre's concept of the practico-inert in The Critique Of Dialectical
Reason. Finally they model Wild Being itself in terms of the Rhizome which is a
loosely connected network of "partial objects". The philosophy of Deleuze and
Guattari is extremely unsatisfying because of its radical and extremist positioning,
even posturing. But they must be commended for attempting to philosophize about
Wild Being. They came up with a ruse that would allow them to enter the arena
after cancellation. They pick two sciences: Psychoanalysis and Marxist Economics.
They allow these two sciences to cancel each other out and then reserve for
philosophical discourse what is left over after the cancellation has occurred. This
brilliant strategy allowed them to open up wild Being to close observation.
John S. Hans in The Play Of The World attempts to save the insights of Deleuze
and Guattari by constructing another similar vision based on looking at the concept
of Play. He construes Play as the realm of Wild Being.
Finally there is the work of Arkady Plotnitsky. He critiques Deleuze and Guattari's
philosophy and attempts to find Wild Being in the incomprehensiblity of Quantum
Mechanics. He connects the philosophy of quantum mechanics of Bohr with the
musings of Bataille and Derrida (as well as Godel) to construct an excellent picture
of the wild frontier of Wild Being. In the process he introduces the concept of anti-
epistemology -- our radical ignorance of what lies beyond the veil of the
complementarities we observe in quantum phenomena and our complementary
theories that can never quite reach completion but always have opposites. Instead of
a morass that Deleuze and Guattari project as the Rhizome, Plotnitsky sees a myriad
of compelmentarities and denies we can see past these to the noumena that lie
beyond. David Boehm with his theory of the implicate order and the hidden
variable model in quantum physics takes the opposite stance. He says that there are
objects beyond the veil but that we must relax our restrictions on making them fully
manifest before we can posit there existence. Bohr on the other hand said that we
cannot know anything beyond the complementarities. The complementarities arise
out of nowhere -- this is the orthogonality of the unconscious -- and it is impossible
to use them to parallax and project what lies beyond that surface of oblivion.
However, Plotnitsky goes on to say that complementarity is not just a nesting of

myriad complementarities but that it has some structure beyond duality which I call
here multiple complementarities. By this I do not mean that one thing might be
differently complementary to different others but that there is a three-way, four-
1360
way, five-way kind of complementarity. Also Plotnitsky raises the possibility that
meta-complementrities exist. He has not said much about either of these
supplements to pure dual complementarities. His statements are somewhat vague.
But they raise the possibility that it is possible to think a fifth kind of Being beyond
Wild Being. In terms of my own philosophical position that is equivalent to
thinking the unthinkable. Here we want to explore that possibility and perhaps offer
some reasons that might be impossible.
In my ontological work I have introduced a framework for understanding the

relation of the different kinds of Being to each other. I have posited that they are
Meta-levels more or less like the meta-levels of learning described by Bateson in
Steps To The Ecology Of Mind. Each of the different kinds of Being is a meta-level
in relation to the last and that the steps of the fragmentation of Being is a gradual
unfolding through the various meta-levels. This is why they are more and more
difficult to think just like the meta-levels of learning. And at the fifth meta-level our
ability to think them completely collapses. Anti-epistemology arises at the fourth
meta-level of Being. That is the result of the collapse together of Process Being and
Nothingness -- a kind of ontological antinomies. When these ontological antinomies
collapse into each other we realize that all our fundamental categories are unstable
and on shifting sands. When we reach the unthinkable fifth meta-level we realize
that besides anti-epistemology we need to go on to embrace an anti-ontology. Thus
I interpret the unthinkability of the fifth meta-level of Being as emptiness (sunyata).
This is to say that the Buddhist concept of emptiness that is neither concept nor
experience and is itself totally empty is the same thing as our inability to think the
fifth meta-level of Being.
This identification of Unthinkability with Emptiness is I believe a profound insight

into the roots of our worldview. It turns out that Buddha was a product of the Indo-
european worldview. I believe he discovered the way out of the morass that we are
embroiled within as we are encompassed by this worldview. If we look at the Indo-
european languages we find that only they have within them the grammatical
structure we identify with Being. In those languages we see that Being is the most
irregular root in most cases. This means that within the Indo-european languages
Being is an artificial construct. It is projected on everything within our world. But
many other worldviews have no equivalent highest possible concept. Thus it is an
anomaly directly connected to the roots of our Indo-european worldview. And in
fact it produces a significant distortion in the way we see things. I believe the
Buddha is unique in that he realized what the antidote for this miasma of distorted
1361
projection of Being on existence. That antidote is the concept of Emptiness.

Emptiness like Being is a meta-concept. Emptiness precisely cancels Being and
allows Existence to shine through. Historically Being encompassed for the Greeks
both Being and Existence. The difference between these two ideas were vague and
nebulous. But when the Philosophical works of the Greeks were translated into
Arabic there was not equivalent for Being in their language. Instead the Arabs had a
term for existence. A term had to be made up to cover the meaning within the term
Being that was a surplus over Existence. That term Kun (to make) did not really
reflect the concept of persisting that Being implies. However, when the
retranslation into Latin was performed in the Renaissance then the distinction
between Being and Existence was preserved.
Being is a subtle clinging to existence. Being is comprised of the fourfold of Truth,

Reality, Identity and Manifestation traditionally in the Greek language. Existence
on the other hand does not exist in the Greek except implicitly, but only in the
Arabic. Existence is what is left when Being as a supplement is subtracted. We will
define it as what is left over when things are neither shown nor hidden. This is to
say that Being as manifestation is a process of showing and hiding. When we do not
engage in this process then what ever is left over is what exists. In Buddhism what
exists is called Suchness or Thusness. Being is a distorting supplement that is added
to the Suchness of existence. It engages us in a process of showing and hiding, of
presentation, of artificial manifestation beyond what is just there. Similarly
existence is that which is neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal, neither self-
identical nor different. In the Greek tradition this middle point was invisible
because of the application of the principle of the excluded middle. In India a more
sophisticated Logic prevailed which could handle that which was 'both ... and' or
'neither ... nor' So a much richer manifestation was visible when one could 'see'
what was both true and false OR what was neither true nor false. And similarly with
all the other aspects of the fourfold of Being. However, none of these moments in
the Indian logical dialectic captured emptiness. The emptiness was a fifth moment
that canceled out all the others. At least this is Nagarguna's contribution to the
understanding of the relation of Logic to emptiness which became pervasive in the
Mahayana understanding of Emptiness. In other words when we cease to apply the
duals from the fourfold of Being like truth/untruth, real/unreal. identical/different,
or present/absent then what is left over only exists. It is neither a nor ~a yet both a
and ~a. We can only indicate with our categories but must go beyond our dual
categories. But essentially this existence is empty. This means that when we go to
the higher level at which there is a chiasm between the 'both ... and' and the 'neither
1362
... nor' then we realize besides going beyond just categories (the anti-
epistemological move) we must also go beyond the positing of Existence itself.
Existence like Being can be thought of as a glossing category. The gloss of Being
covers over Existence but the gloss of Existence covers over the thusnesses that are
there. When we realize as the Buddha did that Existence was empty he made a
profound move into what is known in Taoism as the Void. This is why Buddhism
flourished in China but failed to take root in India. The void of Taoism that
expresses the absence of not just Being but also the gloss of Existence in the
Ancient Chinese tradition is directly indicated by the non-concept non-experience
of Emptiness that destroys Being in all its kindness.
Thus Buddhism gives us a means of understanding beyond what we can think. As

Parmenides said 'Thinking and Being are the Same' but Buddhism provides a guide
to reflection that stops thinking and allows us to see what exists and that it is
intrinsically empty. When we bring this back and apply it to the unfolding of the
meta-levels of Being we see that what Being really is IS a means of projecting
illusions through the process of ideation. The different kinds of Being work together
to produce this process of projecting illusory continuity on the world. Thus the
simile of Plato's cave is apt. Within out worldview we are encompassed. There is a
show going on which is manifest in our Televisions, Cinemas, Theaters and
Computer ensembles and it produces the illusion of a continuity. It is intrinsic to the
Social Construction of our world. Who plays the part of the sophist carrying the
objects and who is forced to watch the shadows continuously changes. But this
show is a closed system enacted on the basis of the differentiation of the kinds of
Being. It is only when we are torn from our places that it is possible to go out of the
cave and see the jewel like nature of existence beyond the darkness of the cave.
Existence is jewel like because each thing reflects every other thing in the world. In
other words, Mahayana Buddhism's concept of emptiness as Interpenetration is
implicit in the jewel like clarity of the world beyond the cave. The wall of the cave
is non-Being. The cave itself contains the show which always consists of four
different meta-levels of Being.
The fourfold of Being is composed of a minimal system of distinctions ala

Buckminster Fuller in Synergetics 1 and 2. Each distinction is fundamental but of a
completely different quality referring to a particular aspect of the relation between
language and the world. These distinctions are embedded in the field of the four
meta-levels. We can see the unfolding of the four meta-levels if we trace back
through the unfolding of the distinctions. In other words all the distinctions are
1363
drawn on the surface of illusory continuity produced by ideation. The fact that the
four distinctions interact with each other creates the temporality of showing and
hiding relations. So the dynamism of the distinctions in relation to each other
produces the A-lethia or uncovering of Being. Note that uncovering is more than
mere presence and absence but instead refers to showing and hiding. The hiding or
showing occurs because presence and absence occurs along with the other
distinctions such as identity/difference, reality/illusion or truth/falsehood. When we
look at the dynamic of the distinctions in their relation with each other there is a slip
sliding of the distinctions past each other that Derrida calls DifferAnce or differing
and deferring. We cannot take them together all at once and make systematic sense
of all the distinctions together in a single synoptic vision. Instead we move form
emphasis on one distinction to the next in a dance where the different fundamental
distinctions play off of each other. It is this dance that hides the Essence of
Manifestation, or the unconscious of manifestation that is purely immanent and thus
never appears. When we realize that the essence of manifestation is the SAME as
what appears in the showing and hiding is when we enter the arena of Wild Being.
Wild Being is like the cyclopedic vision which sees what never appears in what is
given. The traces of what never appears is everywhere written on everything. But
we only see it when we realize that what never appears is the SAME as what does
appear.
We can think about this using the analogy of the mirror offered by Onar Aam
(private correspondence). In studying Phenomenology he realized it was possible to
go beyond the conventional interpretation of phenomenology that uses the
technique of reduction to a more genetic phenomenology similar to that suggested
in the Sixth Meditation by E. Fink. When we consider the anomaly of the mirror we
note that there are three possible relations we can have with it. We can look though
it into an alternative world, or we can look directly at the surface of the mirror itself,
or we can look at what we see as a reflection of the world we are in. Onar Aam
relates these three possible relations to perception, sensation, and conception. He
notes along with the phenomenologists that we do not look at sensations but see the
things themselves out there contrary to all expectations of our studies of perceptual
mechanisms. It is difficult for us to concentrate on anything like what Husserl calls
the hyle of consciousness that might be called pure sensation. Instead
phenomenology teaches that the matter of consciousness is always mixed up with
the forming intentions in ways that make them inextricable from each other. Thus
Husserl speaks of noesis and noema. They are mixtures of intentionality and the
hyle or content of consciousness with different proportions of intention and
1364
sensation. But a perception or cognition is never pure hyle or sensation. Instead like
the mirror analogy it is either a reflexion (cognition) in which the emphasis is on
intention or it is a perception where the emphasis is on the hyle. When it is a
perception it is as if we were looking though the mirror of consciousness while if it
is a cognition it is as if we were looking back within consciousness from the mirror
of consciousness into the formlessness of the source of intentions.
Consciousness is of course another way of talking about Being. Consciousness is

the nexus of showing and hiding that envelops each of us. Consciousness is the
psychologistic approach to Being. Another way is to take an approach that sees
instead the whole realm of Being as Heidegger does as a clearing, transparency
surrounded by opacities. Within that clearing there are reflexions where we rebound
toward the source of intentionality (sometimes called the transcendental subject in
phenomenology) or translucency in which the opacity and transparencies mix.
Every mirror is an anomalous combination of these elements. The mirror is
composed of the transparent glass, and the tain. In the glass if we look at its surface
we see a pattern of colored lights that are close to what we call sensations which are
translucent. The tain is composed of the opaque silvered compound that gives off
reflection. Thus every mirror contains a combination of all the ways light can play
off a thing in a single anomalous configuration. The mirror is a special combination
of opacity, translucency, transparency, and reflectivity. So when we look at
consciousness we can see that it has a lot of similarities to a mirror. And in fact we
can see the clearing of Being as a mirroring within what Heidegger calls the
fourfold of Being. As such we can that in consciousness there are many opacities in
the midst of which we find a certain transparency. There is a continuum between
the pure opacity and the pure transparency which results in the great variety of
translucencies. Within this arena there are also certain moments where reflections
arise so that things take on the color of other things within the clearing.
From out of the source of intentionality comes the distinctions between the
fundamental distinctions between truth/falsehood, identity/difference, reality/
illusion, and presence/absence. In Being they are the Same in the sense that
Heidegger teaches us in Identity And Difference, i.e. that they belong together as
the different aspects of Being. Through those distinctions we interact with the
opacities, translucencies, transparencies and reflections within the Clearing of
Being. So the clearing in Being as the nexus of social consciousness becomes a
complex arena within which there is ideational production and the testing of
conceptions. The spectrum of lights interacting with darknesses that we see going
1365
from transparency though translucency to opacity with an occasional reflection is

the medium that the non-nihilistic distinctions are drawn upon. When these non-
nihilistic distinctions cohere then we have the Indo-european ideal of rta (cosmic
harmony) which in the Greek culture is called Arte (excellence) and today is called
what is 'right'. This complex interplay of light and darknesses and the distinctions
we make are the material out of which we socially construct our Indo-european
worldview. We are continually constructing it anew. But what remains the same is
the fourfold of Being and the interplay of the mirroring within the clearing of the
dark forest of what is not Given. Heidegger talks about appropriation as what 'It
gives'. When all that 'It gives' is appropriate to each other then we have the
realization of RTA. But for the most part we are confronted with the lack of Rta in
which all the distinctions are inappropriate in which case we are lost in the illusion,
falsehood and difference rather than bathed in the light of truth, reality, and identity.
In fact within the fourfold of Being it is possible to have every combination of the
pairs identity/difference, truth/falsehood, and reality/illusion. These combinations I
call the trigrams of Being after the different set of trigrams developed by the
Chinese in the context of the I Ching. All these combinations of the distinctions
within Being are continuously moving from presence to absence and this is what
gives us the dynamic of the fourfold of Being. And the distinctions are written on
the surface of consciousness that embodies the spectrum of possible lightings of
things. The play of lights and the play of non-nihilistic distinctions make up the
complex dance within social consciousness that we see as the dynamic within the
clearing in Being.
If we look at social consciousness or the clearing of Being we can see that between
the surface of consciousness that is lighted which gives us forms and patterns, and
sky of non-form from which the non-nihilistic distinctions arise there is a gap. This
gap is where the meta-levels of Being arise. The sky of consciousness that is the
origin of the non-nihilistic distinctions appear is what Heidegger calls the Heaven.
The surface of consciousness were forms and patterns appear is what Heidegger
calls Earth. Within the cleavage between heaven and earth there arise mortality and
immortality. We can see mortality in the limits of our finitude as creatures. We can
see immortality as the opposite of our own mortality. Thus we construct a
dichotomy which posits our finitude in our existence and project its opposite which
is the transcendence of infinitude. Transcendence and Immanence play between
heaven and earth. This is the view of the fourfold that Heidegger explores in his
later philosophy following Socrates who defined the fourfold of the world in terms
of Heaven, Earth, Mortals and Immortals.
1366
The opposite of the positive fourfold of Being is the negative fourfold that appears
in the Theogony of Aristophanes in the Birds. It is projected on women and is
comprised of Night, Covering, Chaos, and the Abyss. We get a better view of the
fourfold of Being by looking at the opposite of the negative fourfold. Then we find
that we have Light, Uncovering, Order, and the Foundation. These attributes of
the positive fourfold are projected on men by Greek culture. There is a dualistic
interplay between the positive and negative fourfolds by which one suppresses the
Other. The negative fourfold represents Otherness which is denied, suppressed, and
destroyed. Yet it still arises occasionally. The greatest modern embodiment of the
negative fourfold is James Joyce's FInnegan's Wake. But since it is normally
completely suppressed we instead normally only see the singularity of mirroring in
the clearing of Being which stands as a sign pointing toward the negative fourfold.
That is the position assigned to women within our culture, i.e. the moment of
invisibility, of sensation, of the surface which is difficult to see. Theirs is the
balance point between the looking through the mirror and the reflection from the
mirror. It is the balance point between noesis and noema where sensation is almost
visible when we look directly at the mirroring surface of consciousness itself.
Between the heavens from which the non-nihilistic distinctions descend as

information from nowhere giving us light, uncovering, order and foundation and the
earth of the spectrum of lights interaction with things (trasparency, translucency,
opacity and reflection) a series of stages are created that correspond to the the meta-
levels of Being. We can understand this when we think of the relation of the meta-
system to the system. The system is the gestalt which is seen in the play of lights
and shadow. The meta-system is the manifestation of both the origin and the arena
within which the system appears. So we can see the meta-system as the clearing in
Being which reveals things that appear in the clearing. But we can think of the
meta-system also as the origin of the systems from which they arise. Systems or
gestalts arise out of the background of the meta-system of consciousness and appear
as figures on that ground. Everything within consciousness can be looked at as
either system or meta-system.
A system is a whole greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. a gestalt. On the other
hand, a meta-system is a whole less than the sum of the parts. The meta-system
always has a lack which is an exact fit for the surpluses of the emergent properties
of the system. The system is like an application while the meta-system is like the
operating system within which the application appears and interacts with other
applications. The meta-system gives the applications its resources and is the
1367
environment, ecology, or milieu within which it operates. A system is like a turing

machine but a meta-system is like a universal turing machine. The universal turing
machine can execute different turing machines read in from tape. Without the
specific turing machines (applications) the universal turing machine (operating
system) is useless. The concept of the system and meta-system is related to the
ideas of Bataille who distinguishes between restricted economy (system) and global
or general economy (meta-system). These ideas are well presented by Arkady
Plotnitsky who shows that the concept of Complementarity of Bohr describes the
nature of the meta-system in the deepest and most radical way. The meta-system is
always a myriad of overlapping complementarities that play together to produce the
ambience out of which systems (classical theories of phenomena) arise and interact.
The classical theories always appear in pairs that are complementary to each other.
Systems are always seen in relation to either the anti-system or their complement,
or against the background of the variety of other different systems that arise within
and interact within the arena circumscribed by a paradigm. Systems always have
overlapping shadows of the other things within the clearing of Being that haunt
them. These shadows have umbras and penumbras that are created by the different
lights that shine on the clearing in Being. There is not just one light but many lights
that appear as different points of view. So on the ground of the clearing are many
overlapping shadows. These shadows are the external manifestation of the
interpenetration of the things within the clearing. Out of this difference there
appears the difference between the categories of quality and quantity. These are
related to each other by the transform of N^2 to 2^N. This means that when we look
at the systems within the clearing we can create a Lano N^2 diagram with the
systems along the diagonal and the intersections of the matrix around the diagonal
represent the (N^2-N)/2 two-way relations between the things. When however we
consider the interpenetrations of those systems we get the 2^N possible system
states of the whole meta-system. These system states refer to the possible qualities
of the system. Qualities appear through the interaction of the systems within the
meta-system. That interaction causes us to move from one system to another within
the meta-system. That movement reveals the implicate order described by David
Boehm (Wholeness And The Implicate Order) that unfolds as we move from
system to system within the meta-system. That implicate order becomes explicit
within the generation of systems in the arena of the meta-system. As we move from
origin to arena there is an unfolding of order through which we see the quantitative
and qualitative aspects of the clearing produced. The opposite of this is the
appearance of multiple lights, like stage lighting that casts many overlapping
shadows. These shadows of things interpenetrate externally on the foundation of the
1368
clearing and are the opposite of the internal interpenetration that defines the many
qualities that arise out of the interaction of systems within the clearing. Order and
light (which means viewpoints within the clearing, i.e. sources of non-nihilistic
distinctions) interact. The interaction of systems turns the implicate order into an
explicit order and thus uncovers the nature of the things within the meta-system.
The interaction of viewpoints that are the lights or sources of distinctions shine on
the foundation of the clearing revealing what persists and bears up the things within
the clearing. So by looking at the aspects of the negative fourfold in a positive light
we see the way in which systems interact within the meta-system of consciousness.
We see how the clearing in Being produces its uncovering, its lighting, its
foundation laying, its ordering. All these are part of the dualistic action which
suppresses Otherness and establishes the uni-verse (one song) sung within the
world constructed by social consciousness. Jung taught us about the collective or
social unconscious. But that must be only the essence of manifestation which Henry
points out is that part of manifestation that never appears. The complement of that is
the social consciousness which appears in Love And Existence by Salthe. Our job is
to attempt to follow the path of Merleau-Ponty and construct a social
phenomenology because the system of the individual breaks up and fragments into
desiring machines strewn across the field of the socius according to Deleuze and
Guattari in Anti-oedipus. The clearing in Being is essentially a field of social
consciousness as opposed to solipsistic concept of consciousness from psychology
and transcendental phenomenology. Only Fink in The Sixth Meditation corrects this
by creating the possibility of a genetic phenomenology that sees the individual
arising out of the social nexus. One flaw in Heidegger's thought is that he constructs
his model of being-in-the-world on the model of the individual and devalues the
mit-sein or being with in favor of the da-sein or being there. The They becomes the
nexus of inauthentic existence that must be withdrawn form though the
contemplation of death. Thus the experiences we have of interpenetrating and
mingling with others that appears in love and friendship play no part. Instead we
must follow Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas in realizing that we come from the social
other and only become individuals much later as we rise out of the social field and
give coherence to our desiring machines. As Derrida has shown by analyzing the
texts of authors that coherence is only apparent and actually has many flaws and
cracks within it that cause it to remain fragmented. We never attain the unity that
Hegel posits as Spirit. Systems never get rid of the shadows of the Meta-sytems that
continually haunt them inside and out. Instead there is the continual process of
asserting transcendence, or the victory of the positive (male) fourfold over the
negative (female) fourfold. That continual self-grounding is what Henry calls
1369
Heidegger's Ontological Monism. But we must realize that the clearing in Being is
not completely transparent but shot through and through with opacity. These
opacities (enigmas, conundrums, mysteries, oracles) that point to what never
appears, is truly immanent in manifestation show us that the meta-system is always
there inside and outside the systems that inhabit the meta-system of the clearing of
Being. But when we realize that the transparencies are the same as (i.e. belong
together with) the opacities then we realize that the field of the social fabric of the
clearing of social consciousness has the nature of Wild Being intrinsically.
As we move from the Heaven were distinctions come from, where the lights, order,
foundation, and uncovering arrives from nowhere toward the earth in which the
interaction of these lights with things makes manifestation occur we see that there
are a series of stages defined by the different kinds of Being. These stages are the
stages which any new system must go through as it arrives from the meta-systemic
origin within the meta-systemic arena. First it appears as tendencies within the
social field of propensities. There we have the desiring machines, i.e. partial objects
that tend toward each other and form chains and networks of interaction. Each
object in itself is incomplete but when they link up then emergent properties arise
that are the surpluses that the systems will exhibit. So at the level of Wild Being
there are only partial objects or desiring machines awash within the field of the
socius. But as these form networks we get what Deleuze and Guattari call the body-
without-organs. That is the manifestation of the unconscious edge between no-form
and form within the field of consciousness. Deleuze and Guattari note that anything
that arises from the unconscious must be by definition unrelated to anything else,
orthogonal to everything else within the clearing. Thus each desiring machine is
what Peirce called a First. These Firsts assume relations within the field of social
consciousness which Peirce called Seconds. And the many relations establish
continuities which Peirce called Thirds. What Peirce rejected was the idea of
Fourths which B. Fuller in Synergetics would have called synergies. Synergies are
overdetermined use of parts of forms in a coherent fashion that suggests
multidimensional overloading of structures. The Thirds as illusory continuities
represent Pure Presence Being which is the first meta-level of Being. Upon these
illusory continuities are projected the relations between firsts that allow the
networks of desiring machines to build up more complex structures by a
constructivism that attempts to imitate unities but always remains flawed. The
dynamics of changing relationships and changing systems within the clearing
represents the operation of Process Being. That operation attempts to continually
renew its continuities and its domination of the negative fourfold by a Will to
1370
Power. It produces a showing and hiding dynamic that has some aspects that never
appear but always haunt what does appear. When we realize that what does not
appear is identical with what never appears then we enter the claim of Wild Being.
But as long as we assume that there is only what is always available we are trapped
on the surface of things in Pure Presence Being. When we realize that showing and
hiding is occurring then we move to a level to comprehend Process Being. When
we realize that the showing and hiding keeps some things always hidden, i.e. our
assumptions, then we enter the realm of Hyper Being. Finally when we realize that
what never appears is the same as what does manifest then we realize the meaning
of Wild Being.
It is worth noting that when we look at the distinctions within the fourfold of Being
between
Figure 319:
truth/falsehood = discrimination = Logos (inner mirroring)
identity/difference = differentiation = Logic (core of Logos)
reality/illusion = discernment = Physus (outer mirroring)
presence/absence = detection = Phenomena (surface of Physus)
that these distinctions breakout into a minimal system of distinctions by a series of

stages:
Figure 320:
logos logic
t/f--i/d
essence | \ / | noematic
| / \ | nucleus
r/i--p/a
physus phenomena
At the first stage there are six relations between the non-nihilistic distinctions.
Figure 321:
t/f-1-i/d = consistency
t/f-2-r/i = completeness
t/f-3-p/a = well-formedness
r/i-4-i/d = verification
r/i-5-p/a = validation
i/d-6-p/a = coherence
Forty eight chiasmic relations:

Figure 322:
1371
CONSISTENCY:
true identity / identical truth
true difference / different truth
false identity / identical falsehood
false difference / different falsehood
Consistency concerns whether speeches are agree with themselves. Self-agreement

of speeches is the main characteristic of a unified subject. Derrida in fact finds that
most subjects are not unified and that there is a fragmentation of speeches that
results in the indecidability of meaning within many texts. This consistency or its
absence is dealt with when we consider the relation between truth and identity or
their opposites.
Figure 323:
COMPLETENESS:
true reality / real truth
true illusion / illusory truth
false reality / real falsehood
false illusion / illusory falsehood
Completeness concerns whether speeches agree with what is external. What is

external to speeches in the individual is his action. The physos of the person is his
actions. But beyond that there is the unfolding of everything externally that mirrors
the interior unfolding of speeches. Completeness addresses the mirroring of these
two unfoldings. The ideal of speech is to have a complete mirroring of the two
unfoldings. But most mirrorings between the two unfoldings are partial. Thus
incompleteness or its absence is the rubric under which the relation between truth
and reality are considered. Most of Science concerns the completion of the
isomorphism between our descriptions and explanations and natural phenomena.
The Completeness of a relation between truth and reality addresses the kindness of
the thing or its essence. The essence of a thing stands as the inner coherence of the
noematic nucleus. It is the adequation between our descriptions and the things we
describe that is to say the our ability to comprehend the things is an expression of
their kindness toward us.
Figure 324:
WELL-FORMEDNESS:
1372
true presence / present truth

true absences / absent truth
false presence / present falsehood
false absence / absent falsehood
When speeches are expressed they are given in a certain order. Rhetoric is the
expression of the discipline of forming the presentation of speeches in order to
make the best impression on the audience. Well-formedness in expressions
concerns how the speeches are presented, what is unsaid, what is hidden, etc. In
speech this has to do with grammatical and stylistic considerations. But in formal
systems this has to do with following the rules of formation for expressions.
VERIFICATION:
Figure 325:
real identity / identical reality
real difference / different reality
illusory identity / identical illusion
illusory difference / different illusion
Verification is when we make sure some down stream product is still faithful with
the source from which it came. This maintaining of mappings and constantly
revisiting them to make sure they are still good is what verification expresses. It is
seen in the relation between reality and identity and their opposites. Reality is the
source from which representations are derived. Whether these derivative
representations still are faithful to or identical to their sources is always an
important question that needs to be addressed.
VALIDATION:
Figure 326:
real presence / present reality
real absence / absent reality
illusory presence / present illusion
illusory absence / absent illusion
Validation is accomplished when we make sure that what has been created
corresponds with what is needed. Thus there is a certain progression in the
unfolding of the physus and that is addressed in a certain way by what is presented
in our artifacts or representations. We validate our representations when we
compare their presentations to some source that we designate as real.
1373
COHERENCE:
Figure 327:
identical presence / present identity
identical absence / absent identity
different presence / present difference
different absence / absent difference
Coherence concerns the relation of presentations to themselves. Are the

presentations identical or different from themselves? This is the coherence of the
presentations. We see this in what Husserl calls the Noematic Nucleus. The
noematic nucleus is the external coherence of the phenomena, its rules for how this
modes of presentation of the object work together.
After considering the seconds or relations between the minimal distinctions we can
consider the thirds or continuities that are represented by the four surfaces of the
minimal system.
Phenomenology is produced when presence and absences is taken out of play.

Figure 328:
t/f----i/d
\ / hidden p/a
\/
r/i
Structuralism is produced when reality and illusion is taken out of play.

Figure 329:
t/f----i/d
\ / hidden r/i
\/
p/a
Hermeneutics is produced when truth and falsehood is taken out of play.

Figure 330:
p/a----i/d
\ / hidden t/f
\/
r/i
Dialectics is produced when identity and difference are taken out of play.
Figure 331:
1374
t/f----p/a
\ / hidden i/d
\/
r/i
Figure 332:
Hermeneutics Dialectics
out of play out of play
t/f----------------i/d
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| /\ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
|/ \|
r/i-----------------p/a
out of play out of play
Structuralism Phenomenology
These are the four fundamental approaches in the Human Sciences developed in
the last Century or so. Dialectics plays upon identity and difference introducing
motion in the relation between identity and difference. Hermeneutics is about the
meaning of texts which appears when truth and falsehood of texts are taken out of
play. Structuralism appears when you take the difference between reality and
illusion out of play. Phenomenology appears when presence and absence are taken
out of play. In other words each of these disciplines use the other distinctions that
arise out of Being and bring them to bear on the distinction taken out of play. Thus
phenomenology assumes that only what appears has any substance, thus reality,
identity and truth are used to explore Phenomenology. Similarly Stucturalism is a
micro-formalism that is used to understand the movement of the Hyle across
discontinuities in the formalism. In structuralism we use truth, identity, and
presence to build a model of the real transformations that occur. In hermeneutics the
truth of the texts are bracketed and thus we can explore their many possible
meanings using reality, identity, and presence. In dialectics it is identity and
difference that are called into question and thus reality, presence and truth are used
1375
to explore this realm.
And finally we get the synergy of all the distinctions that appear in the minimal
system as a whole. That synergy might be called a fourth when we add Fuller's
synergies to to Peirces category scheme. Peirce only dealt with logic and not
gemometries so the synergies were not needed to understand logical phenomena.
What we see is a lattice that every minimal system produces:

Figure 333:
1=========4==========6=========4==============1
zeroths firsts seconds thirds fourths
void orthogonals relations continuities synergies
desiring networks illusory overdetermined
machines chains unities coherences
Appearance Changes in Projection of
out of Relations Continuities
unconscious
Propensities M
Possibilities A
Probabilities T
Calculus H
Tendencies S
Wild Hyper Process Pure Presence Wild
Being Being Being Being Being
The relations of the the other kinds of Being to the void (i.e. emptiness) and
synergy (i.e. interpenetration) is Wild Being.
Wild Being is the edge of Being as it interfaces with the fifth meta-level of Being
or emptiness. You note that wild being consists of the desiring machines in the field
of the socius as they manifest from the body without organs. The appearances from
the body without organs of the desiring machines shows us that there is an
unconscious or essence of manifestation -- an edge on the unknown. But there is
another edge on emptiness or the void that is represented by Wild Being. We see
that edge on no-form when we consider the partiality of the desiring machines and
their need for the social field. The partial objects desire each other and completion
though they are intrinsically incomplete and lonely due to their orthogonality. They
are hollow and seek to be filled. Or they are extruded and seek to be encompassed.
They have an essential lack. But that lack has an edge on the void from which
intensities and meanings arise. And they can cohere in synergies though resonance
1376
that give them an entrance to the social flow experience.
We notice that the whole tetrahedron is empty in the center, i.e. defines an empty
place. The emptiness of the place it defines is equivalent to the whole tetrahedron
that defines it. The emptiness that the lattice of Being defines is Existence.
Existence may be defined as that which is neither shown nor hidden, neither true
nor false, neither identical nor different, neither real or illusory.
Figure 334:
Both true and false = Assumption
Neither true nor false = Declaration
Empty of truth/falsehood discrimination = Existence as suchness
Both present and absent = Ghost

Neither present nor absent = Haunting
Empty of presence/absence detection = Existence as thereness
Both identical and different = Sameness

Neither identical nor different = Monstrosity, Alien
Empty of identity/difference differentiation = Existence
as thatness
Both real and unreal = Symbolic

Neither real nor unreal = Imaginary
Empty of real/unreal discernment = Existence as thusness
The approach toward the center of the fourfold is Heuristic Research. It eschews
the distancing inherent in the four humanistic approaches. For distancing it
substitutes an indwelling that focuses on the that which is of concern. It experiences
the suchness of the thatness in the thereness which is thusness. In other words we
see the distinctions coming out of the heavens. The distinctions acting together give
us the properties of the worldsystem (coherence, consistency, completeness,
validation, verification, wellformedness). When they act together in threes we see
the four humanistic approaches based on distancing arise from through what is left
out in every set of distinctions. And when we consider all the distinctions together
we find that they synergize altogether to give us the fourfold of Being that is a
synthesis. But following the Geode theory of Meaning this synthesis is inherently
empty. That emptiness can only be approached by considering those points where
the distinctions fail to apply. They fail first where something is both A and ~A and
then again they fail where something is neither A nor ~A. Both A and ~A describe
one side of the Greimas Square. Neither A nor ~A describe the non-A dimension of
the Greimas Square. That which is Both ... Neither defines the empty. It is existence
1377
that does not participate in the showing and hiding, truth and falsehood, reality and
illusion, or identity and difference relations that make up Being. Existence has the
four expressions: Suchness, Thusness, Thatness, and Thereness associated with it.
But ultimately it is inexpressible as Kubler says about 'Actuality' in The Shape Of
Things. The intrinsic emptiness of existence is unsayable. That emptiness does not
appear anywhere. That emptiness is not found in the unfolding of physus anywhere.
That emptiness cannot be formalized using identity and difference. The emptiness is
not associated with any concept nor any experience. Emptiness is itself empty, yet it
suffuses all Existence. We must declare emptiness. We must see that it haunts our
world. We note that it is the ultimate monstrosity. We must understand that it is
only an imagination. Yet emptiness, or the void, underpinnings everything that just
exists beneath the pomp and circumstance of the showing and hiding of Being. That
showing and hiding is an illusion projected on empty existence.
As we can see we went through four stages:

Figure 335:
Gestalt
|
|___ System = Real Algebra
|
distinctions: Pure Presence Being
t/f==i/d==p/a==r/i
|
|___ Disipative Special System = Imaginary Algebra
|
relations between distinctions: Process Being
coherence, consistency, wellformedness, coherence, validation,
verification
|
|___ Autopoeitic Special System = Quaternion Hyper-Algebra
|
continuities that are disconnected: Hyper Being
Humanistic approaches: structuralism, dialectics, phenomenology,
hermeneutics
|
|___ Reflexive Special System = Octonion Hyper-Algebra
|
Synthesis/Void: Wild Being
minimal system of fourfold of Being and its empty center.
|
|___ Recursive Meta-System = Sedenion Non-division Algebra
|
1378
Proto-Gestalt = implicate order of David Bohem
Between these stages of the unfolding and infolding of the lattice of the minimal
system there are three special systems. These special systems are defined in terms
of the balance between surplus and lack. They embody perfection within the realm
of imperfection, or immortality in the realm of mortality. They exist as the
transitional elements between the different kinds of Being that separate the system
from the meta-system. A new thing arises from the meta-systemic environment and
has to pass through these four stages of Being on its way to full membership as a
thing in the world. These special systems maintain the difference between the kinds
of being and their stages. First the thing is a part of the implicate order beyond the
veil that is represented by the complementarities. Then the new things pops out of
the void much the way the total minimal system of Being is seen upon the back
ground of the void. That background of the void is both inside and outside the
minimal system. That background of the void is existence itself, i.e. that which is
neither shown nor hidden. The showing and hiding process appears on the backdrop
of empty existence. What we see are partial objects upon a field of propensities or
tendencies. These partial objects pop out of the body-without-organs which is the
collective unconscious. That collective unconscious of manifestation has been
called by Henry the ESSENCE OF MANIFESTATION. That is what is never
shown. We know it exists because each of our Humanistic Sciences has some basic
part of the tetrahedron of Being that it puts out of play and thus effectively hides by
its strategies of distancing. Thus almost as soon as the proto-system arises it is seen
to be hiding something which it never shows. What we do see though is the process.
The system itself has characteristics such as completeness, consistency, well-
formedness, verification, validation, and coherence. The process of exploring these
characteristics of the system calls on us to enter into Process Being. Finally in that
process we construct the illusory continuities on which we write the distinctions
between truth/false, identity/different, real/unreal, and presence/absence. This
writing of these distinctions upon the surface of illusory continuity is the inner core
of the fourfold of Being infolding and unfolding then infolding again over and over.
Figure 336:
Pure Presence = Forms >>> Phenomenology
Process Being = Signs >>> Structuralism
Hyper Being = Traces >>> Hermenutics
Wild Being = Tendencies >>> Dialectics
Working backward we see that when we write a difference that makes a difference,
1379
one that is relevant and significant on Existence then we make a formal mark. Form
means both the Shape and the Shaped. Structurally that Form is made up of micro-
formalized content that we can think of as signs. Phenomenology sees the
appearance of the form but Structuralism tests it and discovers its reality. When we
write a sign it is made up of traces. Hermeneutics sees that trace in terms of its
many possible meanings. The trace is what Derrida explores in Grammatology.
Dialectics traces the inner contradictions that lead to motion in the world. These
inner contradictions are seen in terms of tendencies that Dialectics sees playing
themselves in the phenomena. Notice how this makes our minimal system of Being
involute as each surface of the tetrahedron addresses through its lack a different
level of unfolding from the implicate order of the proto-gestalt toward the gestalt.
The special systems are way stations in this process of unfolding. They are the
secret nexes of immortality within the mortality due to the ultra-efficiency
conferred by the special systems. So the description of the world by Socrates and
taken up by Heidegger as the convergence and mirroring of Heaven, Earth,
Mortality, and Immortality describes the infolding and unfolding of the Positive
Fourfold as it transcendentally suppresses the Negative Fourfold. In that process it
creates the anomaly of the mirror that becomes the earth. It creates the sky of
nowhere out of which the light of the non-nihilistic distinctions arise. These interact
and what results is the separation out of the different kinds of Being as the
progressive stages of the appearance of the radically new thing. Within that
separation out of the stages arises these points of balance that we know as the
special systems and they provide the relief of immortality as the secret within
mortality. Plato describes a series of cities:
Figure 337:
Real City SAVAGE (Cyclops) (D&G)
City of the Republic or old Athens BARBARIC (D&G)
City of the Laws BALANCED and LONG-LIVED
Atlantis CAPITALISTIC (D&G)
City of the Gods UTOPIAN (Scheria)
These different cities represent images of these different stages. The real city is a
gestalt we see before us that has some ordering due to historical development. That
real city is as Plato says one were there is savagery reigns. People come together
only for shelter from wild beasts and they take their style from the leading family so
they all have the same style set usually by one family among families. The barbaric
city is that ruled over by the tyrant. The tyrant treats the whole city as if it were his
1380
own household. As Deleuze and Guattari say the Barbaric city is run for the tyrant
and his ego only. The Barbaric city is dissipative in that the order comes from inside
one individual and covers everyone in the city or even the whole empire. But when
barbarism is balanced by barbarism then we get the autopoietic structure of the
balanced and long lived city such as that which appears in Plato's LAWS. When the
city becomes imbalanced then it becomes reflexive and ecstatic pouring outside
itself in the manner we see in capitalism. Finally we have the utopian city which is
the city of the gods. It is the real Olympus actually inhabited by the Gods. Such a
city is a utopia that works because it is peopled by Gods not men. The city of the
Republic and old Athens is an image of the utopian city, just as the city of excesses,
Atlantis is a mirror of the real savage city. It is only the Autopoietic City that
maintains balance that can last and it is the best city that humans can hope for even
though in ultimate terms it is as Plato says, second best. These cities that Plato
sketches hover around the balance points that appear as the stays between the layers
of unfolding of the kinds of Being. Deleuze and Guattari talk of three of these cities
in Anti-Oedipus. They do not recognize the other three. However, if we study the
cities of Plato we are furnished a mirror to the soul. The city is the external mirror to
the soul. The mythology is an internal mirror to the soul. When we place these two
mirrors together we get an insight into emptiness as the two mirrors cancel in the
process of their ramified cancellation. The series of stages on which the special
systems are erected are precisely the progression of possible mirrorings.
Figure 338:
One Mirror = Singularity within the Positive Fourfold = point
Two mirrors facing = Dissipative Special System = line
Three mirrors facing = Autopoietic Special System = surface
Four mirrors facing = Reflexive Special System = tetrahedron
Six mirrors facing = Recursive Emergent Meta-system = cube
The best way to understand this series is in terms of the unfolding of the
imaginaries. This occurs through the inner logic of the Greimas square that is based
on the square of contraries and contradictories in logic. The Greimas square
describes the inner logic of narrative. Thus in the square we have a perfect
connection between Logic as the inner coherence of the Logos. This is half of our
minimal system of non-nihilistic distinctions. In the Greimas square we distinguish
between A and its complement ~A and between that anti-A and what ever else there
is which is the non-A. So we get:
Figure 339:
A --------> non-A
1381
|
|
\|/
anti-A
So we see that in the Greimas Square we stretch out in two dimensions toward the
complement and toward everything else. The Greimas square is formed when we
realize that there is another term which is the anti-non-A which stands for the Other.
Figure 340:
A --------> non-A
| |
| |
\|/ \|/
anti-A ----> anti-non-A
So for Greimas all narrative is about the Other. The Other is the antipode to the
self. It is not one's complement nor something else but it is the inverse dual which is
sometimes called the doppelgangers. In other words the Other is your mirror in
everything else though separation and difference rather than gatheredness and
similarity. Narrative makes the Other present. It plays on the presence and absence
of the Other. The Iliad is driven by the absence of the female slave that was Achilles
prize. The Odyssey is driven by Odysseus' absence from home. But in each there
are a myriad monsters. The monster in the Iliad is the Amazon queen that Achilles
falls in love with and kills at the same time. The monster in the Odyssey is the
immortal love that Odysseus shuns with Calypso, Circe, the sea nymph that gives
him the veil, and Nausicaa. Odysseus is a kind of Anti-hero vis a vis Achilles. He is
much like Oedipus in the way that Gaux paints him in Oedipus, The Philosopher.
Odysseus travels through the negative fourfold in the time of his delayed arrival
home. Calypso's name means to cover. Circe rules over the entrance to the Abyss of
Hades. The sea nymph that saves Odysseus from the chaos of the storm sent by
Poseidon. Odysseus enters into the dream like land of Sheira where he meets
Nausicaa at night. His stay there is bracketed by sleep. It is the ultimate utopia that
stands opposite the real city of Troy that is sacked. The anti-city to Scheria is the
land of the Cyclopes.
Figure 341:
barbaric
sacked savages
Troy-------> Cyclopes
| non-city
|
1382
|
\|/
Scheria
anti-city
cannot be
sacked
FIGURE 342:
Utopian
Troy-------> Cyclopes
| non-city
| |
| |
\|/ \|/
Scheria----> Hades = City of the Dead
anti-city Island of the Sun = immortal cattle
Calypso's Island = isolation
Aeolis's Floating Island = incest
[Various Monstrous Locations]
So we can see how the Greimas square produces the logical framework through
which we can construct categories of otherness. It is through those monstrous
categories that we see the aspects of Reality that are anomalous. Thus reality opens
itself up to us through the Otherness that we produce via the Greimas square. So we
see that all the features of the fourfold of Being appear in our use of the square.
But we can go beyond the use Greimas makes of the square to explain the dynamic
of narrative via the encounter with Otherness. We can realize that the anti-non-A
may not be identical to non-anti-A and in fact these might be chiasmicly related. So
in fact different monsters appear against different complementarities. In existence
there are many synergies so that things participate in multiple complementarities at
the same time. We deny that there are multi-complementarities or meta-
complementarities but we accept that there are synergies of things that allow
overdetermined participation in multiple pairwise complementary relations
simultaneously. In fact, this is precisely the sign of the interpenetration of all things
which is the positive aspect of emptiness. Or for a given complementarity we could
have different backgrounds of non-complementarity. Thus the Greimas Square
opens up like a book to express the difference between the chiasmic monsters: anti-
non-A and non-anti-A
For instance, the island of the sun is opposite Hades the realm of eternal darkness.
Or Aeolis's island of incest that floats might be seen as opposite Calypso's island in
1383
the middle of the ocean that represents perfect isolation. All these monstrosities of
location have different chiasmic relations to each other. We are beset by a multitude
of monsters. Our theories have to deal with many anomalies not one in order to
produce a paradigm shift. The opened up Greimas book looks like this:
Figure 343:
NON-BOOK:
non-A1---------- A ----------- non-A2
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
anti-non-A-------~A----------non-anti-A
Or it might look like this:

Figure 344:
ANTI-BOOK:
anti-A1---------- A ----------- anti-A2
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
anti-non-A1-----non-A12--------non-anti-A2
Notice that if the anti is opened out by the book then the identity of A becomes
problematic whereas if the non-A is opened out in the book then the identity of A
remains unproblematic. So the simplest case is to open out Non-A to difference and
by that produce a chiasm where the identity of A is left simple. If in fact we model
the participation in multiple complementarities then the identification of A in the
monstrosity becomes compromised because it refers to different complements.
These chiasmic components are similar to the proto-imaginaries that G. Spencer-

Brown develops in his Laws Of Form which I have named *i* and *j*. These are
complementary waveforms of the algebra of marks as shown by Kaufmann and
Varela. If we think of the production of the complement to be similar to moving
from the real numbers to the imaginaries, so the complement is i then we can think
of the proto imaginaries *i* and *j* to be similar to the j and k that arise on the
quaternion algebraic level.
Figure 345:
NON-BOOK:
1384
real
non-A1---------- A ----------- non-A2
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
j i k
Note that either complement may take the other as its complement
so that the non-As become the proto-imaginaries of the complement

Figure 346:
NON-BOOK:
j' i' k'
or
real
non-A1---------- A ----------- non-A2
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
j i k
or
real
When we take two books and put them together we move up from the quaternion
structure to the Octonion structure. This gives us a cube and we must introduce the
anti-book with its even higher level imaginaries called I, J, K and E. The NON-
BOOK and the ANTI-BOOK together give us the Greimas Cube.
Figure 347:
r----------J
/ | /|
/ | / |
1385
/ | / |
K-----------I |
| | | |
| | | |
| -----|-----k
| / i | /
| / | /
|/ |/
j-----------E
The Greimas Cube (or perhaps I should call it the Palmer Cube an alternative to
Rubric's Cube that goes well beyond what Greimas envisaged) is the fusion of the
Anti-Book and the Non-Book into a structure that projects the seven imaginaries. In
doing so it projects a cube of chiasmic relations that are all reciprocal and
complementary. Through the unfolding of the Greimas Square we are able to
understand the logical model of non-duality as it expresses itself in the inter-
embedding of the complexnion, quaternion, and Octonion structures. That model
gives us a nexus for the fourfold as we can use it to understand the logic of chiasmic
relations such as those we noted above when we saw that there were 48 possible
chiasms within the fourfold of Being. The Greimas square offers us a logical
structure at the heart of narrative discourse (logos). The opening up of the non-book
and the anti-book allow us to see the other that drives the narrative. The narrative is
a presencing within the discourse and from it arise anomalies which are our means
of seeing reality mediated by the categories in the discourse. The Iliad defines the
Heroic Mytho-Poietic world. The Odyssey shows us the anti-hero's obverse world
in which he encounters the negative fourfold as he attempts to return from oblivion
to the Positive Fourfold. Between the two epics is a mirroring that defines the
World of the Greeks and by transmission our world. In it we see the panoply of
scenes that appears in the shield of Achilles that mirrors the world. There are six
sides to a cube and four corners. Across each diagonal there are two chiasms so this
gives us the forty eight chiasms in the fourfold of Being. Without reversibity these
are twenty-four and are related to the twenty-four cell polytope in four dimensional
space which is a super-lattice of the Hypercube lattice and its dual.
But we can travel further. This model of the Greimas Cube lets us study the
permutations of chiasms within the fourfold of Being. Yet this is a static
Parmenidean structure that arrives from the unfolding of the three special systems
in a complex nested structure. So the dynamic of unfolding when it is exhausted
gives us a static structure of the flawed glass cube. But we can on the other hand
1386
develop the opposite picture which is of the dynamic within the cube of the
Emergent Meta-system. In this case the dynamic of the swarms of monads within
the cube has a patterning which is stable. Instead of the pattern of genetic unfolding
there is the infolding of the dynamism of swarms of monads trapped in the flawed
glass cube. This is a completely different way of looking at the mutual operation of
the three special systems. This other approach is much like that of Heraclitus who
saw the universe as flux. It is the chiasm between the Heraclitian view (those
initiated into the lesser mysteries) and the Parmenidian view (those initiated into the
greater mysteries) that the sophist advocates in Plato's dialogue THE SOPHIST.
The Sophist calls for Change and Changelessness at the same time, i.e. the non-dual
relation between the Parmemidian and the Heraclitian views of the Greimas Cube.
But note that both views are a fusion of dynamism and stasis. The Parmenidian
view is a genetic unfolding that ends in a stable static structure. The Heraclitian
view is a dynamism of monads in swarms that has stable structures within it. The
two together gives us models by though which we can approach the Sophists non-
dual ideal of change and changelessness at the same time.
To get a picture of the Emergent Meta-System we must begin again from a

different starting point. We note that in the LAWS OF FORM there are four aspects
that allow the definition of the laws. These are something, nothing, multiplicity and
layering. These combine to give us the laws:
multiplicity reduces to something
layering reduces to nothing
The dual of the laws are related to pattern not form:

multiplicity reduces to nothing
layering reduces to something
These two sets of laws have been explored in detail in earlier essays in this series.
Here it suffices to say that if we accept these aspects that underlie the laws then we
can begin to construct the Emergent Meta-System formation. That formation
combines the aspects of the laws with four operations. Three of those four
operations were contributed by Goertzel when he defined the Self-Generating
System as an improvement on the component system of Kampis. The component
system of Kampis is like Legos. It is a set of components that are combined in ever
new ways which cannot be described by computational algorithm and must in fact
be must be computed stochastically. Goertzel invented a different kind of
1387
component system were instead of the components being stable and the relations
changing, both the components and the relations change. This self-generating
system has unstable components that use rules to generate each other. Rather than
assuming continuity the Self-generating System assumes discontinuity. The image
of such a system is a bunch of Magicians who all create each other in a lifecycle
where a swarm is created, interacts, and then creates the next generation together.
Goertzel said in one of his papers that such a system that assumes discontinuity in
the components would be quantum computable, a stronger condition that stochastic
computation. He believes that such a system would have to embody three operators:
Annihilation, Mutual Action, and Gestalt Formation. In other words the Swarm as it
reaches maturity interacts, each forms a gestalt picture of the whole, and then each
produces a series of candidates to exist in the next generation. Those candidates
from each member of the swarm cancel each other out to produce the seeds for the
new generation. Thus the swarm of monads cycles through its series of lifecycles.
Individual monads can only exist by collusion with other members of the swarm.
Thus such a system is inherently social.
I have taken Goertzel's idea of the Self-Generating System and improved upon it
slightly. I have made the condition of the separation of the lifecycle generations
absolute and added an operator that is the dual of annihilation which is a creation
operator. The mutual action operator is the dual of the Gestalt Formation operator.
The problem I am addressing is the necessity of radical emergence or spontaneous
generation of monads. I distinguish three kinds of emergence. Kampis' Component
system is an example of Artificial Emergence where the new thing comes out of
novel combinations of things that already exist. Then there is chiasmic emergence
that the self-generating system proposes where the new thing comes out of the
inexplicable order of chaos. In other words the Self-Generating System will
normally fall into Chaotic regimes and in those regimes there may be orders in the
seeming randomness that goes beyond our capacity to understand. Such HIDDEN
ORDER (c.f. John Holland) adds a random component to the combination of the
artificial emergent system to produce a new kind of emergence that is not 'just' a
combination of what had not existed before but may be an introduction of an
ordering hidden in chaos into the combination to produce something strikingly new.
Finally there is radical emergence which is the emergence of spontaneous
generation. In this emergence something orthogonal to all the kinds in the swarm is
produced out of nothing. Spontaneous Generation is normally denied by Science.
Yet in order to understand emergence fully we must have the possibility of this rare
event within our theoretical framework. Radical emergence occurs via the creation
1388
operator that produces a monad whose kind is orthogonal to all presently existing
kinds. If we use the formalism of Evolving Algebras we would have to extend it
with an operator to produce new Universes, i.e. new kinds of things whose newness
is expressed as its jutting out into a new dimension of possibility from all the things
now in existence. When we add the possibility of spontaneous generation then we
can make the breaks between the lifecycle phases complete and we can approach an
old and vexing problem.
The problem is that of how there can be continuity in a discontinuous universe.

Normal Process models of systems assume continuity and then try to explain
discontinuities. Here instead we assume discontinuity as Goertzel does but the we
push it to the extreme by saying that there is no connection between lifecycle phases
for a swarm of monads in an Emergent Meta-system. This confrontation with
radical discontinuity has a long history especially in Buddhist metaphysics
culminating in the concept of the Alaya-vijyana or store house consciousness in
which karmic seeds are laid down in one moment to effect a subsequent moment.
Unfortunately this model begs the question of how does communication of these
seeds take place. In the emergent meta-systems model an answer to this conundrum
is found. What occurs is a series of reflections. Nothing physical travels from
moment to moment but instead the reflections of previous and future moments
occurs. Light not matter passes between the moments. When we apply this to the
Emergent Meta-System model we find that there are four life-cycle phases to each
swarm generation.
Figure 348:
1. Seeds fructify into monads
|
|_____ Creation
|
2. Monads interact within the swarm.
|
|_____ Mutual Action
|
3. From their different viewpoints the monads get a view of the
| whole swarm
|
|_____ Gestalt pattern Formation
|
4. Monads nominate Candidates that annihilate in a simple voting
| process.
|
|___ Annihilation
1389
|
5. The Candidates that are left become the seeds for the new
generation.
This cycle is a dynamic model of the interaction of the four kinds of Being. It is a
picture of the interaction within the Meta-System of Systems. It is an archetypal
image of the edge of form/no-form. It a lifecycle that is encoded into the game of
Go. In it Leibnizian style monads in a swarm become viewpoints within a
constellation which become in turn candidates in a slate that in turn become seeds in
a pod. Each reflection is a transformation of the monads. The monads are reflecting
around a square of mirrors which we can see as a cubic internally mirrored
formation much like the Greimas Cube. Each operation within the cubic mirroring
is formed from a lost property of the algebras that the special systems are based
upon. This the special systems are active within the Emergent Meta-system
formation. This mirroring is a model of the mutual mirroring that Heidegger posits
occurs within the positive fourfold of Being. It turns out that this mirroring within
the cube is very complex. There are at least three different cycles of mirroring
around the sides of the cube. And along the diagonals of the cube there is the cubic
reflector phenomena that will throw a beam back in the direction it came from.
Thus there are two regimes or cycles of mirroring within the cube. These two
regimes might interfere with each other creating a complex pattern. It is unknown
exactly how the two regimes, oscillation between corner reflectors and circulation
around a square of mirrors would interact. But the mirroring of which the EMS is
part within the Greimas Cube is very complex.
The EMS structure is actually very ancient. It is contained perfectly in the model of
the game of Go (Wu Chi) from China and Japan. It exists in the stages of play of the
game. When we play go it is done with white and black stones on an 19 by 19 grid.
Stones are placed on the intersections and not moved unless taken. The pattern of
the stones slowly accumulates based on some very simple rules. When we are
playing the game we are oscillating back and forth between the operations mutual
action and gestalt pattern formation. At the end of the game though we shift into a
counting mode which rearranges the stones and attempts to figure out how many
empty intersections are surrounded by each side. These empty places cancel and the
score is what is left over after cancellation. These final empty spots are divided by
nine to discover what the handicap for the next game is. These handicap stones are
like the seeds that are transferred to the next generation. An important point is that
nine empty spots are transformed into one seed. Thus there is a transformation by
1390
which present stones define empty spots that become present stones in the next
game. Thus something is produced literally out of nothing as we move through the
generations of the game. In this way we see coded into the Go game a precise model
of the EMS formation. That formation stands on the edge between form and no-
form and is symbolized by the Dragon in Chinese iconography.
The EMS formation contains all the special systems (transformed into operators)
within a single working model of the life-cycles of swarms of monads. That
formation needs four mirrors off which to bounce its reflections in order to create
the flow of its lifecycle. This unique formation is the model of the meta-system. It
can be seen as contained within the unfolded Greimas cube which also contains
implicitly all the special systems. The Greimas Cube shows us the interrelations
between the seven imaginaries and the real numbers at the Octonion level of
unfolding. It contains the quaternion, complexnion, and real algebras nested within
it as the stages of its unfolding. Those same algebraic structures appear as the meta-
operators in the EMS meta-algebra. So in a single synoptic vision we see two
different views of the way that the special systems nest into the meta-system. In this
synoptic vision we fulfill the SOPHISTS request that we have change and
changelessness at the same time.
2. Hierarchies
Once we have a view of the fourfold of Being then it is possible to look at the
thresholds of complexity that have different kinds of organization within it. We can
look at this in two ways. We can consider the ontic emergent hierarchy that is
something like this:
Figure 349:
society
organism
organ
living cell
organic molecules
molecule
atom
fundamental particle
quark
sub-quark
But a completely different way of looking at this is via the ontological emergent
hierarchy which is something like this:
1391
Figure 350:
pluriverse / multiple universes
kosmos / universe
world / natural language
domain / specialized language
meta-system / implicate ordering (proto-gestalt)
system / gestalt / narrative
form / object / symbol
structure / pattern / sign
monad / hyle / content / trace
fragment / partial object / propensity / tendency / tracelessness
If we look at phenomenology then we see that Husserl only dealt with forms.
Guervitch attempted to correct this by adding the concept of the gestalt to
phenomenology. But this opens up the possibility that there are multiple thresholds
of coherence with different organizations. Anything in the world can be viewed in
relation to each of these levels of organization. Phenomenology and the other
Humanistic sciences (like Dialectics, Hermeneutics, and Structuralism) should deal
with all these levels. As it is they tend to deal only with parts of the hierarchy.
Phenomenology concentrates on Forms and structures. Hermeneutics concentrates
on a similar level but in relation to language. Phenomenology looks at the essences
that underlie the ideas that are attached to forms. Hermeneutics looks at the
meanings that underlie the symbols attached to the words of the sacred text.
Dialectics looks at the systemic level and attempts to understand the movement via
contradictions. Structuralism looks at the structural level where there are binary
patterns of encoding in culture or some other phenomena that transforms across
discontinuities. Structuralism projects a micro-formalism on content in order to
understand transformations. So dialectics and structuralism attempt to deal with
change of the formal level either globally through the system or at a micro level
through the structures that organize the content below the formal level. But if these
sciences were correctly aligned each would deal with all the levels of the
ontological emergent hierarchy.
Figure 351:
PHENOMENOLOGY
Pluriverse ?
Kosmos ?
Domain Disciplines
Meta-System Implicate Order
System Gestalt
Form Object
Structure ?
1392
Monad Content
Fragments ?
HERMENEUTICS
Pluriverse ?
Kosmos ?
Domain ?
Meta-System ?
System Narrative
Form Symbol
Structure Sign
Content Traces
Fragments ?
DIALECTICS
Pluriverse ?
Kosmos ?
Domain History
Meta-System Chain of Dialectical Moments
System Dialectic
Form Thesis and Antithesis
Structure ?
Content ?
Fragments ?
STRUCTURALISM
Pluriverse ?
Kosmos ?
Domain ?
Meta-System ?
System Culture
Form Individual
Structure Structural Complex
Content Binary Oppositions
Fragments ?
We are not going to try to construct these more robust versions of the four basic
humanistic disciplines here. But were are merely pointing out the gaps in their
understanding of the hierarchy of ontological emergence. But these need to be
fleshed out and then connected to a version of Heuristic Research that is similarly
well developed.
Instead we propose to go back to the hierarchy and look at it in another way. We

will look at it in terms of the nesting of the levels. First we note that the special
1393
systems that we have been discussing are nested at the center between the system
and the meta-system levels.
Figure 352:
System
Meta-system
It is a question that I have been pursuing whether there are similar special systems
between the other layers in the ontological emergent hierarchy. Now I believe that
there are not, but instead there is a peculiar nesting of the other levels around this
midpoint of the autopoietic system. That nesting has the following form:
Figure 353:
Pluriverse ---------------------------------
Kosmos --------------------------------- |
World ============================ | |
Domain ======================== | | |
Meta-System ---------------- | | | |
Reflexive Special System ---- | | | | |
Autopoietic Special System |--| |----| |-----|
Dissipative Special System -- | | | | |
System --------------------- | | | |
Form ========================== | | |
Structure ======================== | |
Monad ---------------------------------- |
Fragment -----------------------------------
This nesting produces the following duals:

Figure 354:
Fragmented Pluriverse ------ Kosmic Monad
World Structure ------ Formal Domain
Meta-System ------ System
Reflexive Special System ------ Dissipative Special System
Every discipline is a formal domain. Husserl points out in Krisis that the problem
with formal domains is that they do not look at the lifeworld, or what Heidegger
calls being-in-the-world, or the structure of the world as lived, called everyday life.
Everyday life in all its complexity is like a meta-system around every formal
domain or discipline. The reciprocity between the formal domain and the world
structure is like the relation between the system and the meta-systemic shadow.
1394
A similar reciprocity exists between the Fragmented Pluriverse and the Kosmic
Monad. The Kosmic Monad (or Atom) is a picture of the archetype of the interface
between form and no-form at the boundary of formlessness. It is modeled by the
EMS structure, its image is the dragon that emerges from the clouds in Chinese
Painting where the clouds are uninked paper. In Islam it is called the lote tree of the
furthest limit. It is that lote tree that the crown of thorns of Jesus was made from. In
Western theosophy there are several geometric versions of this archetype. The point
is that the pluriverse of all possible worlds that comes about through the
fragmentation of the monads is like a shadow of the Kosmic Atom. The Kosmic
Atom is like a system to which the Pluriverse represented by Yddrasil, the world
tree in the Indo-European tradition, is the meta-system. In Indo-european tradition
the world tree is envisaged as being beside the well, the universal source of all
things. Between the well and the tree that we see in the Primal Scene of Indo-
European mythology there are the Norns. They are the representatives of the
Kosmic Atom. They take the water of life from the sources in the unseen and water
the tree of life. This primal scene and its ramifications through the Indo-european
tradition is explained in my book The Fragmentation Of Being And The Path
Beyond The Void. In that primal scene there are the sources that have no-form. The
EMS like Norns take the water of life from no-form and cross the line into form and
water the world tree (sometimes called the tree of life). The tree of the sources is
sometimes called the tree of knowledge. The Norns continually take from the tree of
knowledge to make fruits grow on the tree of life. We already know that the
autopoietic system is living/cognitive. That is to say it chiasmically sits on the edge
between life and knowledge. Here knowledge relates to no-form and life relates to
form and the EMS like Norns sit on the edge tending both the well and the tree.
Notice that our ontological hierarchy of emergence is missing the equivalent to the
Well, i.e. unseen sources. Plato called these the source forms. They are sometimes
called ideas. The difference between ideas and sources is that ideas are projected
from form onto no-form. Sources project no-form onto forms. In other words if we
project from from onto no form we get ideas but if we allow the no-forms to bubble
up we get sources, or what might be called unseen causes.
Unseen causes and action at a distance are rejected by modern science. But
traditional Chinese and Islamic sciences that are based in cultures of Existence
rather than cultures of Being such as the Western Indo-european culture assume the
opposite, they assume that unseen causes exist and use that as a way of
understanding autopoietic systems. Chinese Sciences like acupuncture and Islamic
Sciences like Homeopathy assume that there are unseen causes and that they can
1395
exert action at a distance. So when we look at the Humanistic Sciences

(Phenomenology, Dialectics, Hermeneutics, Structuralism) we see them
introducing distance in their methods. This distance is the corollary to the
assumption of direct action and seen causes only. The opposite of these humanistic
sciences is Heuristic Research which rejects distance and dwells in the object of
investigation. It says that if you want to know depression you go and experience it,
you don't just study it abstractly and in others. This lack of distance has the
corollary that when you actually experience things directly you realize that things
are so created as to continually be effecting each other. This mutual effect can only
be experienced when we reject distance. Then action at a distance becomes a real
effect, as seen by Jahn and Dunne's study of psychokinesis. Dwelling in and
rejecting distance from ones subject allows one access to unseen causes and the
interpenetration of things which show up as action at a distance. The humanistic
sciences with their emphasis on distance are concerned with projecting ideas on no-
form. Whereas if one rejects distance, and dwells in the subject under investigation
becoming that subject then one experiences the no-forms without projection, that is
the sources of things.
We know that the autopoietic system looks at the chiasm between knowledge and
life. Knowledge comes from no-form as information from no-where, no-why, no-
when, no-who. That knowledge passes through the EMS structure and effects the
Forms that exist in the hierarchy of ontological emergences. No-form is not in the
hierarchy because it is just what is said -- no form. It cannot be captured in any kind
of form. Although we have access to it via our imaginations that project form onto it
or get glimpses of it in our images that never quite capture it. No Form is extremely
subtle. It is this non-captuable upwelling from the void that has been called
Meaning or Lights. Enlightenment is basking in these lights from the unseen,
unheard of that upwells in the midst of life. We have realizations and apprehend
meanings and all these are upwellings from the unseen realm of no-form. It is out of
the emptiness inside everything that this upwelling occurs. The hierarchy of
emergent thresholds are the thresholds of order that is animated by this water of life.
But the threshold contains at the highest level the Norns of the EMS formation and
the World Tree or Pluriverse called Yddrisil. At the next level down there is the
individual formal domains that exist within the world tree as sources of
perspectives. These multiple perspectives fragment reality and lead to nihilism as
Fandozi says in Nihilism And Technology. The domains cause the submergence of
the Lifeworld, being-in-the-world, the structures of everyday life. Nihilism causes
us to not be able to distinguish between Systems and Meta-system views. And
1396
because we cannot distinguish between them we cannot see the special systems that
are set up as a hinge between the system and the meta-system. This hinge has the
image of the fragmented individual made up of desiring machines (dissipative
structures) in a field of the socius (reflexive structures). The individual when
considered as a unity of cognitive/living organization is also invisible. In our
philosophical, scientific, and technical culture the autopoietic system only appears
as a paradox. We see the paradoxes but cannot see that the paradoxes mask. The
Chinese and Islamic traditional cultures that were based on the assumption of
unseen causes intruded across the line from no-form through formlessness into
form. They saw everything as an autopoietic system. They did this by taking the
opposite assumptions of Fusion with the object instead of imposed distance, of
recognizing unseen causes from no-form through formlessnes intruding into form,
as meanings or inward lights, and they assumed action at a distance rather than
direct causal relations between things. Their view was based on taking the
interpenetration of all things as the baseline and then working within that
interpenetrating network that can be seen in the model of the autopoietic network
where each node is a reflection of the whole. This is what self-producing must mean
-- it means all the parts together produce the whole and thus must have an image of
that whole embedded within them.
As we move out from the source of complete fusion of knowledge and life, we get
the fusion of form and pattern, the fusion of the social and psychological. These
form pairs:
Figure 355:
Social Pattern SOCIETY Psychological Forms MIND
Or
Social Forms CULTURE Psychological Patterns PERSONALITY
These two chiasma show us the environment in which the fusion of cognition and
life, knowledge and experience, appears and unfolds within.
But beyond this there is the relation between world structure and formal domains.
Formal domains produce the disciplines in which the humanistic approaches are
applied. We apply distancing to the formal domains and create nihilistic
perspectivism that fragments everything. But the meta-system within which all
these disciplines exist within is the lifeworld, the neighborhood, the community, the
structures of everyday life. In everyday life we live the overdetermined and
overwhelming plethora of interacting states and dynamics that become fused into
1397
qualities that cannot be disentangled and represented quantitatively.
And beyond that there is the images of the world tree (fragmented pluriverse) and
the kosmic monad that we imagine though the image of the Norns. Here at the edge
of form on the shores of a vast ocean of possibilities we find ourselves right up
against the interface with formlessness and looking across the cliff face into depths
of the glacier of no-form. In that blue ice we imagine forms and through that catch
glimpses of meanings and lights within each empty form.
These nesting transformations of system and meta-sytem all converge on the

autopoietic system showing us complementary duals that image it at higher and
higher levels of abstraction all the way to the level at which we converge on the
edge of formlessness. The autopoietic system is the image of the paradoxical fused
form/function. It is the word that is both noun and verb -- Form Forms, Shape
Shapes, Love Loves, Thinking Thanks, Is IS! It is a jewel set in a diadem. The
diadem is the nested levels that take us out to the edge of formlessness.
Now we have a complete theory.
We start with the Formal Domain. G. Spencer-Brown has produced an archetypal

image of the formal domain in his LAWS OF FORM in which the Mark Marks.
Operator and Operand are fused in the Laws of Form. It is the image of the
Autopoietic system as Verela has intuited. By setting the LAWS OF FORM in
motion Kauffman and Verela produced a model of the autopoietic system using the
proto-imaginaries that Brown introduced. The LAWS OF FORM shows us the
formal domain and gives us a model of how Form creates its domain when it
informs itself. The domain is the arena of the playing out of the permutations that
the form goes through as it forms itself.
The formal domain can be described by a lattice:

Figure 356:
1 Non-nihilistic Distinction
4 truth/falsehood identity/difference
real/illusory present/absent
6 consistency completeness wellformedness
1398
verification validation coherence
4 structuralism dialectics phenomenology hermeneutics
1 unity of operator and operand
In the formal domain distinctions are made that describe differences that make a
difference from some specialized perspective. The formal domain is based on
ontological monism and so the ultimate foundation is Being which allows four
kinds of primary distinctions within the formal domain. The relations between these
primary distinctions give us the six primary properties of the formal domain.
Putting out of play one distinction from the other three we define the four
fundamental approaches to the formal domain, the basic humanistic disciplines flow
from these: structuralism, dialectics, phenomenology and hermeneutics. And finally
when we have all four distinctions together we have the image of unity in which the
operator and operand are one. When Is IS then the Mark Marks. In other words it is
within the arena of ontological monism underlying the formal domain that we can
create a LAWS OF FORM. Laws of Form is not an independent construction but is
dependent on the production of an underlying transcendental metaphysic which
Laws of Form embodies.
The LAWS OF FORM has a dual I have called the Laws of Pattern. We get that by
producing the opposite of the laws:
Figure 357:
FORM PATTERN
()() = () ()() =
(()) = (()) = ()
The laws of pattern have to do with the embodiment of the Laws of Form. They
give us the ability to turn the LAWS OF FORM into a computational model, they
give us the ability to read and write on the mobius tape of a turing machine model.
But both the LAWS OF FORM and the laws of pattern (the dual) share the same
four aspects:
Figure 358:
() = something
1399
= nothing
()() = multiplicity
(()) = layering
Figure 359:
/ layering --- multidimensional GRID
something <
\ multiplicity --- instantiation of monads

Figure 360:
/ layering --- metalevel-grids
nothing <
\ multiplicity --- ramified types
In this view the formal domain is composed of monads that occur in grids. the
grids have meta-levels and ramified higher logical type formations. It is these
monads that we are making the relevant distinctions about in the formal domain.
The grids can be a way of capturing the swarms within swarms within swarms of
monads at different levels of abstraction.
The question is how can we think about the way these swarms work in the face of
radical emergence -- spontaneous generation and radical discontinuity between
lifecycle phases. We need to expand our systemic view of the formal domain with a
meta-systemic view of the world structure. The world structure revolves around the
four kinds of Being. It is the modalities of being-in-the-world that define the world
structure and these relate directly to the four kinds of Being:
Figure 361:
Pure Presence present-at-hand pointing Form
Process Being ready-to-hand grasping Sign
Hyper Being in-hand bearing Trace
Wild Being out-of-hand encompassing Propensity
In other words the formal domain has within the structure of transcendence where
Being grounds itself and Marks mark themselves a foundation. Forms are based on
1400
signs that are based on Traces that are based on propensities. The sign is the
diacritical mark that differentiates identical instances. The trace is the impression on
the substance that allows the mark to persist. The propensity is the resistance of the
medium itself to the incision of the trace that throws that incision off course. These
levels are the strata of the world structure that supports the formal domain.
Ontological Monism come from the restriction of the world selfgrounding structure
to only the first two meta-levels of Being. Ontological Dualism occurs with the
recognition of otherness within the ontological structure of ontological monism and
that gives us Hyper-Being. Wild Being is the realization of the diversity of
otherness and the realization of the necessity of ontological multiplicity. In
ontological dualism it is posited that there is an unconscious to manifestation and
that there is something that never appears in manifestation but leaves its traces
everywhere. In ontological multiplicity it is realized that there is really no
difference between the immanent and the transcendent. In other words when one is
looking at the the conscious aspects of manifestation one is seeing equally the
unconscious aspects. It is in the variety of consciousness contents themselves that
the unconscious is embedded. Each of those differences within the contents are
absolute. The very discontinuities and distinctions themselves in the field of
consciousness ARE the unconscious aspects that do not appear. We see the things
but the differences between the things ARE the unmanifesting immanent parts of
consciousness.
If the world structure is the meta-system to the systemic formal domain then we
can see that the depth it brings to our appreciation of forms within any discipline.
All forms are built from signs through traces on propensities. All forms extend
down into the foundation of manifestation. We can just see the forms or we can
look again and see that the Forms Form themselves and thus partake in ontological
monism. But within the formal domain there is according to Godel unprovable
statements and these show us that an ontological dualism underlies the ontological
monism and beyond that we can see that this dualism opens up into a multiplicity
that Deleuze and Guattari call the Rhizome.
Phenomenology points out the relation of the world structure to the formal domain.
Husserl concentrated on forms but was able to point out the existence of the
lifeworld. Guervich added gestalts (Systems) and could point out better the margins
of consciousness. Heidegger opened up the realm of transcendence grounding itself
in Ontological Monism (Is IS) which he also glossed as 'It Gives'. But then it was
1401
realized that there was much more depth there than Heidegger at first
acknowledged. The way was opened to ontological dualism when Heidegger talked
about -B-e-i-n-g- (crossed out) which Derrida called DifferAnce (differing and
deferring) or the oscillation of undecidability. Merleau-Pointy called this the Hyper-
dialiectic of Process Being (Heidegger) and Nothingness (Sartre). Finally Merleau-
Ponty defined the highest meta-level of Being and called it Wild Being. It is the
Chiasmic fusion of Continuity and Discontinuity, Change and Changelessness,
e.t.c. Merleau-Ponty called it the Flesh. It is what is left over after the cancellation
of the metaphysical antinomies of Process Being and Nothingness that occurs in
Hyper Being.
The key here is that the formal domain is the system and the world structure is the
meta-system. But these two have an obverse dual at the next level up called the
kosmic monad and the fragmented pluriverse. The kosmic monad is modeled by the
Emergent Meta-System and the fragmented pluriverse is modeled by the Greimas
Cube. Again these two stand to each other as system to meta-system. What is
fascinating is that in the Emergent Meta-system we take the computational monads
and merely add the four meta-operators and recognize the four kinds of monad
(seed, monad, viewpoint, candidate). Then all we need to do is recognize that the
way around the problem of radical discontinuity between moments is though a
reflective model where each monad kind is turned into the next in a cycle via the
meta-operations:
Figure 362:
seed monad in pod swarm
|
|_ creation '~'
|
|
normal monad in swarm
|
|_ mutual action '|' (or '<' or '>' if the action is one way)
|
|
viewpoint monad in constellation
|
|_ gestalt pattern formation '#'
|
|
candidate monad in slate swarm
|
|_ annihilation '!'
1402
|
|
seed monad in pod swarm
This cycle is the reflection off of the walls of a cube of inwardly reflecting mirrors.
Each mirror is a phase in the lifecycle of the swarm. The kinds of monad arise from
the application of the meta-operators to the monads of the swarm to produced the
phases of the swarm lifecycle. In this sense the kinds of monads are the operands
that are chiasmically the same as the operators. What we see here is that when we
say that 'Monads monad' we see that they form a minimal system of presentations in
different reflections. We can relate this to the fact that the spinnor is the form of a
body at rest in spacetime. You have to do a dance around with 720 degrees of
angular momentum to stand still in spacetime. This is the dance that the eventity
needs to make to be itself. This is GH Mead's definition of the moment, the time it
takes for something to be itself, to realize itself, for the operation it does on itself to
become itself to complete. It is the cycle of autopoiesis, the time it takes for the
system to produce itself. Thus the spinnor when thought of as a minimal system has
four different geometric manifestations: Tetrahedron, Mobius Strip, Torus, Knot.
Each of these have 720 degrees of angular momentum coded into them. They are
four static representations of the spinnor, the point that stands still in spacetime.
Similarly we can think of the monads and their operators as the equivalent of the
spinnor except here there are four moments of the lifecycle of the swarm and no
geometric representation of the minimal system. A minimal system has a lattice
such as that we pointed out for the formal domain. Each minimal system can be see
to move through the four phases of the unfolding of its lattice in its lifecycle phases.
We can see the lifecycle phases of the EMS formation as the moments between
each of these reifications:
Figure 363:
non-nihilistic distinction
Interphase: SEEDS / CREATION
four primary distinctions
Interphase: MONADS / MUTUAL ACTION
six primary properties
Interphase: VIEWPOINTS / GESTALT PATTERN FORMATION
four approaches
Interphase: CANDIDATES / ANNIHILATION
unity
Interphase: Radical Discontinuity
1403
non-nihilistic distinctions . . . cycle begins again.
In other words the EMS formation is what is going on in the interstices of the
phases of the unfolding of the lattice of the formal domain. It is the hidden substrate
operating within the empty discontinuities in the unfolding of the formal domain.
It is important to realize that the four meta-operations (!~|#) are all derived from the
loss of properties as we move between the different hypercomplex algebraic
systems.
Figure 364:
Real algebra = no properties lost = creation meta-operator
Complex algebra = no properties lost = annihilation meta-operator
Quaternion algebra = commutative property lost = mutual action meta-operator
Octonion algebra = associative property lost = gestalt pattern formation operator
It is this cascade that takes us from hyper-algebra to hyper-algebra that produces

the meta-operators of the EMS structure as the side-effect. This also defines the
three special systems:
Figure 365:
Real algebra = System
Complexnion = Dissipative Special System
Quaternion = Autopoietic Special System
Octonion = Reflexive Special System
Sedenion and above = Meta-system
These special systems are in perfect balance so that they allow the involution of
operator and operand aspects of the Mark without any loss and thus have a special
efficacy (efficiency + effectiveness). The difference between these special systems
are what define the kinds of Being in the world structure.
1404
Figure 366:
System
|
|_ Pure Presence Being
|
|
|
|_ Process Being
|
|
|
|_ Hyper Being
|
|
|
|_ Wild Being
|
|
Meta-System
The World structure is the four different kinds of Being. Emergent events must
pass through each of these layers to enter the world. Anything that does not go
through all three stages is not genuinely emergent. The world structure unfolds from
the internal differentiations of the Kosmic Monad which is modeled with the EMS
formation. The 'space' in which the EMS structure arises is produced by the
unfolding of the Greimas Cube. The Greimas Cube is a picture of the unfolding of
the eight imaginaries at the Octonion level. But that cube once it exists can be seen
as inwardly mirroring and to create the reflective surfaces necessary for the EMS
formation to appear. The unfolding is of imaginaries that appear out of the
singularity in the field of the formal domain. We have called that the ellipse of
consciousness. The ellipse of consciousness has two foci, one is the foci of
symmetries that leads to the unconscious. The other is the foci of the singularity that
opens up into the dimensions of the special systems through the stages of the
hypercomplex algebras. Consciousness is merely another name for Being or
manifestation. Being has a lot more depth than appears in any formal domain. It has
at least four kinds of Being that take us to the limit of the thinkable and to the
confrontation with emptiness at the fifth meta-level. When we attempt to produce a
formal domain like Descartes does where everything is clear and distinct we ignore
everything that is unclear and indistinct. That sets up the formal domain as different
1405
from the rest of consciousness. Eventually we discover that this formal domain
must ground itself to maintain itself as distinct and clear. But the self-grounding
operation takes time. That time allows the entry of the other kinds of Being as the
phases of the self-grounding (self-production) sequence. In BEING AND TIME
Heidegger talks about this entry of time into Parmedian Static Being like the frozen
Block of spacetime that appears in Relativity theory. But time is not simple it is in
fact complex. There is the time of processes as we see forms develop from
childhood to adulthood to old age. There is the time of differing and deferring that
Derrida calls Differance in which undecidability occurs as different fixed points
arise and are oscillated between. There is the chaos that occurs when these fixed
points become infinite and where there is not return to the same point in phase space
twice. With this infinite information and non-visiting of the same point twice we
have entered into Wild Being. Notice the similarity with quantum information
theory and quantum computing. A quantum computer never returns to the same
state in its computational worldline. A quantum computer can compute across
myriad parallel universes and thus has access to infinite information. Quantum
computation gives us a model of the core of the autopoietic system and causes us to
take seriously the idea of time running backward because every quantum
computation must be reversible. This is the secret to the ability of the Operator and
the Operand being unified and that unity's unprecedented efficacy (efficiency +
effectiveness). It is conveyed by the various layers of deep time that appear in the
kinds of Being. Being and Time are made one though the layers of the different
kinds of Being, we can just as well call them the different kinds of time.
Figure 367:
times: beings
Static Surface Time: Pure Presence Being
Probablistic Process Time: Process Being
Hidden Undercurrent Time: Hyper Being
Deep Time: Wild Being
out-of-time: emptiness
Figure 368:
1406
Static Time is the Augustian notion of the infinitesimal moment of the

present in a continuum going from future towards the past.
Probablistic Time is the random choice of the quantum event as it breaks out
of its probability wave into a particular random state on observation.
Hidden Undercurrent Time is the time of the probability wave itself prior to
observation. It is by definition non-observable.
Deep Time is the pre-time or the pre-geometry underlying the manifestation

of all temporal events. In deep time there is a chiasmic relation
between continuity and discontinuity.
Empty Time between moments in the radical discontinuity.
The Buddhists enter the interstice between the moments by falling back into
emptiness. They go through a series of aspects that enumerated as follows:
Figure 369:
Beginning
The Time(1) before the Beginning
The Time(2) before the Time(1) before the Beginning
Existence
NonExistence
The Time(3) before Non-Existence
The Time(4) before the Time before Non-Existence
Notice that there are four times here. These four times are meta-levels just like the
meta-levels of Being. The beginning sets our sights on the process of generation
moving though completion to decay. Beginnings and Endings define the boundaries
of the times by which something becomes itself and loses itself again. We call the
time of completion those moments of pure presence when the thing can be itself
completely, and all its faculties, powers and features are available to it in a way that
is not perfect in youth and old age. Pure presence slices the generative process
tough some point of completion. Here time one is before the beginning. That must
refer to the time of the seeds. The time before the time before the beginning is the
point at which those seeds were laid down in the last EMS cycle. The time of the
seeds is what we called above Deep Time. The time before the time of the seeds is
what we called above the hidden undercurrent time. So we notice that in the two
meta-levels of time described by the Buddhists we have seen the entire temporal
1407
cycle from Hidden Time where the seeds are laid down, to Deep Time which
sustains the seeds, to Probablisitic Time in which the seeds come to fruition when
the quantum probability wave breaks on observation, to Surface Time where we
take sliced through the things at completion.
What we notice is that like the EMS cycle we are moving back and forth between
existence and non-existence. There is radical discontinuity between the cycles of
existence which are moments of non-existence. But since non-existence is non-
existent these moments can pervade existence through and through and this is called
emptiness. Emptiness is itself empty. This meta-emptiness of nothing is the
distinction between existence and non-existence. But the Buddhists consul us to go
back to a point before non-existence. That point before non-existence is the point
where the distinction between existence and non-existence has not yet arisen. This
is what the Buddhists call non-production non-destruction. When we drop back into
emptiness we reach a point where we realize that the world is not produced nor is it
destroyed. This point is the source from which the differentiation between existence
and non-existence arises. And the Buddhist would have us go back one stage farther
to the point where even that source has not arisen. This is pure emptiness.
Emptiness is not non-existence nor existence. Emptiness is the point between

existence and non-existence at the point of perfect balance. Emptiness is itself
empty. This means that when we go back before the distinction between existence
and non-existence arose we can find a place where both existence and non-
existence were unproduced and undestroyed. But if we go back further we find that
there is a point where the source of the distinction itself does not arise and that is
perfect wisdom. Perfect Emptiness.
Let us apply this reasoning to continuity and discontinuity. Determinate functions

as produced by calculus seem to have perfect continuity. But this idea continuity is
different from the continuity of actualizations which are probablistic. Probablistic
continuities have discontinuous gaps between instances. It is a mixture of continuity
and discontinuity through the realization of instances or their non-realization. But
beyond this there is the spectrum of possibilities. Such a spectrum has discrete
quanta of possibility within a continuum. There the discontinuities are absolute.
Within a possibility category there is continuity but between possibilities there is a
radical discontinuity. Possibility and Probability are combined in Propensities. If
you multiply the possibility (does not add to one) with the probabilities (must add to
one) you get the propensity. Propensities are a chiasm of continuity and
1408
discontinuity. That is to say Possibility has one way of mixing continuity and
discontinuity and Probability has another. Propensities are the chiasm between
these two mixtures. Systems that occur within the continuous/discontinuous field
are themselves a play of continuity off discontinuity and vice versa. If a system is
thought to be completely continuous we call it monolithic. But with Kampis
component systems we see systems that arise as emergent events from the
combination of components Lego style as in chemistry when we mix different
molecules. In such systems considered as a design landscape there is a mixture of
realized and unrealized possibilities in relation to actualized probabilities. It is
impossible to realize all possibilities as actualities given the computational time it
takes in relation to the time that the universe has been in existence. So Kampis calls
such systems non-computable in a deterministic fashion. Thus such systems are
called stochastically computable. We realize some acutualizations of possibilities at
random. Self-Generating Systems improve upon this model by introducing the idea
that the components are not stable and static but are in fact creating each other. This
allows the modeling of the self-producing systems. Here also there is a relation
between possibilities and probabilities where components are being made by other
components over the cycles of creation and destruction of components.
Actualization is not just of relations between static components but actualization is
in the production of the components itself. The possibilities are not just possibilities
of relationships but are possibilities of creation of components too. The Self-
Generating system mixes these two new kinds of probabilities and possibilities.
What the EMS structure adds to this is that new kinds of entities can be produced by
the monads working together that have not existed before. We do not just have to
chose from a repertory of predefined sorts of entities. We can have the monads
designing new kinds of monads. The signature of the entities can change as they do
in Genetic Algorithms. Here we explore the possibilities of what might exist. Here
we produce sets of actualizations that included novel monads that have never
appeared before. So the EMS formation pushes us up against the limits of the
manifestations of probability and possibility and their combination. When we reach
these limits we see the real difference between existence and non-existence.
Ultimately existence and non-existence are defined by what can and cannot exist
under the auspices of radical emergence. Thus we have isolated the most radical
discontinuity when we state that something cannot exist even under radical
emergence. This means that this is a hard constraint built into the foundations of
existence. When we isolate this most radical distinction between existence and non-
existence we can see that the three stages of time related to the beginning are really
the kinds of systems.
1409
A monolithic system is one that does not have components that are combinable.
Once we have components then we have combinatorial relations that can be
emergent. If components themselves may be produced then we have relations and
actualities that can be emergent. If components can make new components and
create new component signatures then we have the most radical kind of emergence.
This should remind us of the the Peirce/Fuller categories:
Figure 370:
Monolith Component SGS EMS
First: Thing static static produced created
Second: Relation deterministic stochastic chaotic chaotic
Third: Continuity yes yes NO NO
Fourth: Synergy continuities relations things things
COMPUTATION turing stochastic quantum quantum
Unity Objects Monads Fragments
The monolithic view says that we have a system. The system is a static thing with
deterministic relations that exist against a background continuity -- i.e. the system is
a gestalt. The monolith synergizes continuities like the different dimensions of
space with time. It is turing computable. The other views beakdown the system into
a meta-systemic field. In the component system there is not one systemic object but
a bunch of sub-objects that combine in different ways. The combination and
production of relations is stochastic. The whole system is not computable so there is
only the computation of examples from the combinatoric field. For the component
system the objects are continuous even thought the monolithic system of which they
are a part is not continuous. Synergies are produced from relations. The
computation is stochastic instead of determinate but the computation deals with
objects. So with the component system we can see that we have opened up a space
within which the monolithic system comes into existence. This is a space of
possibilities out of which certain random relations are actualized. This is much like
the Kaufmann NK landscape model developed in The Origins Of Order or At Home
In The Universe. But look how much more we open up that space if we allow the
production and destruction of the elements that enter into the relations. This would
signify the constant reordering of the NK landscape of Kaufmann. In SGS the
things are produced and destroyed. This produces chaotic processes that may
endlessly cycle. Continuity is no longer assumed and in fact denied but not with a
1410
radical denial. Synergies are produced from the things created together in a
particular cycle. That synergy is called the inner structure of the swarm. It is how
the swarm organizes itself. SGS systems are quantum computational following
David Deutsch's definition. Objects are broken down into patterns of monads (hyle
or content). Finally we have the EMS structure which is very similar to the SGS.
The primary difference is that things are created out of nothing with spontaneous
generation. A new thing is taken as orthogonal to all the possible things that might
exist at any one point in time. This kind of system also models chaotic processes
and denies continuity. Synergies are again among things and it is quantum
computable. However, monads are thought of as fragments where each monad has a
minimal system of faces like: seed, viewpoint, candidate, monad. The EMS
structure is only a small improvement on the SGS but it allows us to model radical
creation in a way that was not in the original model.
Notice the effects of fragmentation. There is a minimal system of operator modes

and operand aspects fragments. We are in effect looking within the SGS monad
within the swarm and seeing that each one is a minimal system of phases and of
faces that work together to allow the SGS monad to be one with itself and produce
itself. That allows us to look precisely at the distinction between form and
formlessness. When we look at that distinction we find that there are really three
matters to be distinguished. There is form, formlessness and no-form. No form is
related to the imagination. It is called an imagination if we project it and it is called
the imaginal if we receive it as if from the outside. Formlessness is a mirror. When
we look though that mirror we see another world which is the world of no-form that
is the dual of the world of form. The world of form is outward and the world of no-
form is inward. When we produce monads they have mutual actions in the external
world. But monads become viewpoints and thus have an inward. Their inward
where they project private pictures of relations with other monads is a world of
imagination. As the monads reflect in the mirror of formlessness they reflect in the
realm of no-form. That is why a monad can have both an outward and an inward
and that produces the mask of monad verses the mask of viewpoint. When that
reflection reverberates it moves back from no-form to form and from form to no-
form. If it moves from no-form to form it is a seed. If it moves from form to no-
form it is a candidate. So here we see that the EMS structure comes precisely from
the reverberation of reflections between form and no-form across the mirror of
formlessness. All this reflecting when we take a macro view will just appear as a
single monad. Each monad in the swarm is going through this kind of cycling
through a minimal system of phases related to the meta-operators (!#|~) and through
1411
a minimal system of masks that capture the moments of reflection. SGS does not
capture this level of detail.
Formlessness exists as the distinction between form and no-form or between

existence and non-existence. Non-existence is not nothing at all. Non-existence is
the reflection of Existence. That is why it is necessary to follow the Buddhist
dialectic back from non-existence as we did from the beginning. They go to the
place before non-existence arises and then beyond that to a beyond the beyond state.
When we go beyond the source of the distinction between existence and non-
existence we have entered into pure emptiness -- the depths of formlessness.
In this theory the difference between the operators of the EMS structure gives us
the world structure. The EMS formation itself is the model of the kosmic atom
which is right on the boundary between form and formlessness. The EMS structure
requires cubic configuration of inwardly reflecting mirrors for its realization and
this arises by the unfolding of the Greimas Cube, that cube is nothing more than the
unfolding of the hypercomplex algebras themselves, but it produces the 'non-space'
within which the EMS formation can reflect. As we walk back down from the EMS
formation through SGS, Component Systems and finally get back to monoliths we
re-enter the formal domain. It is the aspects of the formal domain that combine with
the meta-operators to produce the EMS formation.
This theory is complete. It explains the structure of the emergent ontological

hierarchy. The upper levels beyond the system/meta-system distinction are merely
reflections of that distinction. What is below that level is the special systems that
make all this possible. In other words it is like looking into water and seeing the
reflection. The special systems are the source that is reflected in the higher and
lower nested levels of the ontological hierarchy. The distinction between system
and meta-system is like the surface of the water. When we make that distinction
then we can see both the source of the reflection and the reflection itself. If we don't
make that distinction then the ontological emergent hierarchy levels of organization
become muddled. They are really the thresholds of organization that the autopoietic
system can be organized at. We have really come up with a theory of what
organization means in terms of what is projected by the autopoietic system. It is the
organization of the logos that upwells within the autopoietic system. It is contrast to
the upwelling order of the physus that what the autopoietic system is embedded in.
The order projected by the autopoietic system is its ecstasy. Thus we must be
talking about reflexive heterodynamic order when we are talking about the
1412
ontological emergent hierarchy. That means that we must be talking about

dissipative order when we are looking at the order of the ontic emergent levels.
Order itself as NOMOS is beyond this chiasm. There is a reflection back and forth
between physus and logos similar to that between form and no-form. Nomos is seen
in the multiple reflections between the ontic ordering and the ontological ordering.
Having a complete theory is a joy. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I have
discovering and exploring it. I am sure we will be exploring it and rediscovering it
again and again for a long time to come. Just in the two years since I first
discovered it I have learned more and had more synergies in my thought than any
time previously in my life. This is a deep theory, with profound implications. Thank
you for taking the wild ride with me through these working papers. I want to thank
the Octonion Appreciation Society composed of Ben Goertzel, Onar Aam, Tony
Smith and myself. I also want to thank Bob Cummings who has listened to many of
these ideas as they unfolded. Also I want to thank my mentor Ian Dallas for his
spiritual guidance. And Leonard Woo who was with me when I first began to
discover these connections and write these working papers.
[end of working paper as of 960911]
3. Kierkegaard
When we look at the Western Tradition we are hard pressed to find an example of a
philosopher who has mapped out the whole series of the Kinds of Being. In
discussions with Dennis Keagy who is a specialist in the thought of Kierkegaard
and Nietzsche especially in relation to poetics and ethics a hypothesis has been
developed that speculates that this one “para-philosopher” has produced a religio-
ethico-philosophical field theory very similar in structure to that which we have
been studying in these working papers. Below a table will be presented that gives a
mapping from the “para-philosophy” of Kierkegaard to the different Kinds of Being
in relation to the special systems. As Dennis Keagy points out Kierkegaard creates a
virtual reality with his pseudonymous works in which the various authors play out
different stages of human spiritual development. The different ‘authors’ represent
various positions in a field of possible human approaches to existence. We posit
that these many selves form a field very similar to that defined as the move from the
system to the meta-system through the special systems that define through their
differences the different Kinds of Being.
1413
Table 27:
Kinds of Being Special Systems K’s Transitions K’s Stages
System Absurd
Pure Presence Transcendent
Dissipative System Paradox
Process Being Religious
Autopoietic System Humor
Hyper Being Moral
Reflexive System Irony
Wild Being Aesthetic
Meta-System Daemonic
What we see here is that Kierkegaard’s characters represent a spectrum that flows
from the Aesthetics of A in Either/Or though the Morality of B. These stand in
relation to the Religious as defined in Fear and Trembling. Religion is defined as
either Immanent or Transcendent and the Transcendent is ultimately identified with
the absurd or the unthinkable. In this way the set of stages when identified with the
Kinds of Being turns our normal way of looking at them on their head. Kierkegaard
also posits a set of transitions between the stages. Between the Aesthetic and the
Moral the transition is Irony. Between the Moral and the Religious the transition is
Humor. Between the immanent Religion and the Transcendental the transition is
paradox. The absurd is the unthinkability of the Paradoxical Paradox. These
transitions we identify with the special systems. Paradox is Dissipative. We have
already seen that the dissipative system is modeled by the Escher Waterfall or the
Penrose triangle. When we move from the dissipative to the autopoietic we go from
the neg-entropic to the homeostatic. Autopoiesis is a conjunction of two
dissipations. Here we would posit that Humor is a similar tension between two
completely different significations. Finally we move to the reflexive system which
would in this context be identified with Irony. Irony would be a conjunction of two
humors. In irony you never know when someone is serious or not. As with the
works of Plato that are so Ironic we can never tell what he really thinks. The Greeks
developed Irony into a fine art. Kierkegaard did his dissertation on Irony with
special reference to Socrates. In Either/Or the judge William (B) gives A the
1414
aesthete a choice between becoming moral by accepting despair or becoming a

poet. The position of the poet, or sophist, is seen in the work of the seducer. That
position is daemonic. It is the position that Nietzsche who did not read the elder
Kierkegaard’s work was to develop. The seducer is the one who manipulates the
aesthetic surface from behind the scenes to produce an effect but whose presence is
always hidden. The Daemonic is the reflection of the Moralist in the mirror of the
surface of the Aesthetic. Macheaveli is an example of the Daemonic. The
Daemonic is the evil twin of the Moralist. It is the one who does not recognize any
higher law that their own law used to their own ends without scruple but taking full
responsibility for their actions. Keagy feels that Nietzsche finds in the field a
position that Kierkegaard does not consider. That is a position where the Daemonic
does not form a self. In Kierkegaard the Daemonic is an Anti-self to the Moralist. It
is produced when one comes to the Crisis of Irony and turns back into the Aesthetic
rather than taking on the burden of Morality. Similarly at the opposite end
Kierkegaard describes the Absurd which is an intensification of the Transcendental
where paradox itself becomes paradoxical such that it cannot be understood by
reason. Here the Transcendental becomes unthinkable as in Meister Eckhart’s
Cloud of Unknowing. Here we find echoes of the fifth meta-level of Being. But
seen as beyond the transcendental instead of beyond Wild Being.
One way to look at the spectrum from Aesthetics though Morality into Religion is
in terms of the movement from Dionysus to Apolloian. The Aesthetic is Dionysus
and the Daemonic is where the as Keagy has said Dionysus speaks the language of
Apollo. There is not just a random chaos but an orchestration of the surface of
wildness. In other words the seducer is behind the scenes ordering everything in
order to set his trap. Similarly the Transcendental source of order Apollo must
speak the language of Dionysus and this occurs when the Absurd appears within the
ordering of the Transcendental. The absurd appears as a singularity within the
ordering of the transcendental producing an incomprehensible disordering.
Religious faith leads to incomprehensible acts that go outside morality such as the
sacrifice of the son by Abraham.
When we understand the spectrum of positions that a human can take toward
existence as the tension between Apollo and Dionysus and how each turns into the
other at the extremes then it is easy to understand the morality of the priesthood and
the pious citizens as being trapped in the middle between these two forces. They are
nihilistic opposites pulling us to extremes. The analysis of Kierkegaard would have
us move toward the Apolloian end of the spectrum away from the Dionysian but
1415
one finds again at the utter extreme the Dionysian element of the Absurd arising
within the transcendental signifying the Unthinkability of the Fifth Meta-level of
Being. True faith for Kierkegaard is throwing oneself into the Absurd. Thus the
Absurd is another interpretation for the unthinkable fifth meta-level of Being other
than Emptiness.
When we ask ourselves how Kierkegaard managed this feat that no other
philosopher in the Western Tradition seems to have accomplished (that is mapping
out the meta-levels of Being prior to the Postmodern era), one possible answer is as
follows. Kierkegaard wanted to produce a non-system that was the dual opposite of
the ‘SYSTEM’ of Hegel. If we accept Plotnitksy’s analysis In The Shadown of
Hegel it is clear that Hegel attempted valiantly to produce a complete system within
the dynamic of Time where the spirit emerged as absolute reason out of the
particulars of history. Kierkegaard inverted this and created a picture of the Meta-
system that was the inverse of Hegel’s ‘System’. That meta-system appeared as a
series of fictional characters which Kierkegaard the poet allowed to speak with their
own voices, to even discuss each other in his diaries. Many of these characters were
not Christians and were never converted. Kierkegaard allowed the pieces of his own
personality to be given life as fictional characters and to be the sub-systems that
arise within the field of the meta-system. The anti-system of Kierkegaard was the
precursor to the even more extreme anti-system of Nietzsche. It is interesting that
the themes that Kierkegaard developed were taken up again by Sartre, Heidegger
and the other followers of Husserl. These were the themes of Human Moods such as
Anxiety which color the whole world and cannot be accounted for by any Reasons.
Kierkegaard was the father of Existentialism because he focused on the importance
of these human approaches to human existence that go beyond the bounds of
philosophy proper and give us some intimation of the extra dimensions of human
existence beyond what philosophy can imagine.
We make the morphism between the stances that Kierkegaard identifies and the
kinds of Being because of the discoveries within Continental philosophy itself. For
instance Levinas shows that the bearing of the mother for the child and the child of
the ministration of the mother are the seed of ethics. He shows that what exists in
Hyper Being is some how a fusion of ethics and metaphysics. Thus we identify
Hyper Being with morality. And this makes sense because DifferAnce is precisely
about oscillation and morality comes about by ceasing to oscillate and to make a
choice. The choice defines the self. When we go on the level of Wild Being we find
John S. Hans identifying it with the Aesthetic and play. Thus at this level according
1416
to Hans we can no longer separate the Aesthetic from Ethics/Metaphysics. So as we

go up the scale from Metaphysics defined as Ontological Monism (the fusion of
Process Being (Heraclitus) and Pure Presence Being (Parmenides)) we find
ourselves confronted by first Ethics and then Aesthetics as a basis for creating an
approach to existence. These are precisely the stages that Kierkegaard finds. For
him the Religious is either immanent or transcendental. Thus the Religious
represents the Ontological Monism only here the transcendent is thought of as God
(i.e. the supreme being) rather than Being. Then when we leave that sphere we
encounter first Morality and then Aesthetics, precisely what modern ontologists
have discovered in their own way. In the Aesthetic realm just as Deleuze and
Guattari point out there is no individual self only desiring machines and the socius.
In other words we are in a field theory such as that Coutu describes with his
tendencies in situations. Within the field are partial selves that coalesce into
temporary configurations. There is no unity of the self within the individual. With
the advent of moral choice we see selves form. The opposite of the moral choice is
the Daemonic invasion of the personality. Such an invasion is Dionysian but with
an underlying order different from the surface of transitory configurations that
would appear within the Aesthetic realm when it is not haunted by daemonic
ghosts. Dionysus is the god who was torn to pieces by the Titans and then came
back to life. When the followers of Dionysus revel in Drunken abandon in the
wilderness we are in a Hedenonic state which is where all the laws are abandoned.
In Indo-european society there are always festivals where the laws are relaxed
where we move from the realm of Mitra the god of contracts to the realm of Varuna
the god of revenge and magical force. When we enter the magical aspect then we
see the daemonic ordering of the seducer. Keagy says that Nietzsche believed that it
was possible to have aesthetic position without positing a self which Kierkegaard
did not believe was possible. In other words Kierkegaard could only see the mirror
image of the moralist in the mirror of the Aesthetic as the Sophist or the Seducer.
Plato called the Aesthetics the ‘men of earth,’ i.e. those that only believed what was
in their hands. The Sophist is the one who tricks the man of earth by believing in the
unseen and keeping something behind his back. Kierkegaard played this role of
Sophist as he deceived the public as to who wrote his books. But he claimed that he
did this deceit to trick people into understanding and moving from the aesthetic to
the moral to the religious. Plato says that there are two Initiates into the mysteries.
One like Heraclitus is initiated into the lesser knowledge of the unseen and believe
it is all flux. The other initiated into the higher knowledge of the unseen believe it is
all static. These two initiates together make up the Ontological Monolith produce
by Heidegger. The ‘Sophist’ in the dialogue of the same name says that what we
1417
really want is Change and Changelessness at the same time. This is like the position
of the Absurd that is beyond the position of the Transcendental as reason
propounded by Parmenides who said Being and Thought are the same. In Plato’s
analogy there is no position for the moralist.
Table 28:
Kierkegaard Plato
Absurd Hierophant Wise ‘Sophist’: Change and

Changelessness
Pure Presence (transcendental religion) Greater Initiate Parmenides
Process Being (immanent religion) Lesser Initiate Heraclitus
Hyper Being (ethics, morality) ?Cadamas?
Wild Being (aesthetics) Man of Earth
Daemonic Trickster Sophist hides truth and fools men
of earth.
But we might guess that the equivalent of the moralist might be someone like
Cadamus. Cadamus founded Thebes by taking an army of the Men of Earth, men
who sprang from the Dragon’s teeth and threw up some stones in the air. When
these landed it caused a fight among the Men of Earth until only five were left and
those went with Cadamus to found Thebes where a wandering Cow stopped.
Cadamus is the one who throws stones upon the Aesthetes worldview and shows
them how fragile it is. It is fragile because it cannot sustain any project in time but
can only sustain it in space. The wandering of the cow is like the wandering of the
Aesthete from passion to passion. The stopping of the Cow’s wandering has a
double meaning of allowing the Aesthete to stick with a project though time until it
is completed instead of being driven from passion to passion by momentary choices
that cannot be sustained. But Cadamus shows the fragility of the Aesthetic position
by producing the nihilistic conflict that comes when no moral compass can be
found. The stopping of the conflict and the stopping of the cow’s wandering is the
basis for the founding of a city, Thebes. Thebes is the city where the Crisis of
Oedipus will occur. Oedipus is the scapegoat and the outcast that transgresses the
religious boundaries. Oedipus is the one who rejects initiation only to eventually
found his own initiation rites. In the Oedipus story there is Creon the Aesthetic
1418
character, Terreisus the Ethical Priest, and Oedipus the Religious Scapegoat who
enters the limial by rejecting the initiation of the Sphinx. But in Oedipus at Colonus
the broken and blinded scapegoat finds a home from his wandering and establishes
a new secret rite for the children of the hero Theseus. The founding of Thebes by
the children of the Dragon’s teeth who are the men of earth bears within it the fate
of Oedipus. The father of Oedipus loves a young man in a homosexual affair and
the young man kills himself. The curse of Oedipus’s father comes to the son who is
destined to kill him. This is because the homosexual love of a youth and the unjust
death of that youth is like the violation of the child of the father. And in fact
Oedipus’s father violates his own son by exposing him and by crippling him. And
the actions of the son are in an unconscious revenge for both his wounding by the
father and for the death of the youth the father seduced. All this shows that
Oedipus’s father did not know the limits in his mistreatment of the young under his
charge, the ones of the next generation. He acted only out of his own lust in the
moment. The lust for the youth and the lust to continue to live despite the oracle of
Apollo. This being caught up in the surface of things exhibited by Oedipus’ father is
similar to the men of earth who cannot distinguish the stones thrown in the air from
actual insults. In other words Cadamus chose people who only had a surface level
comprehension of the world to build his city, and it is clear that such men of earth
would give rise to children that could not distinguish their proper roles as fathers
and guardians which demands the deeper application of moral principles regarding
caretaking for the higher good and the future generations. Cadamus allowed the
conflict between the men of earth to decide who would found the city with him and
he allowed the stopping of the Cow to help him decide where that city should be.
He was following the oracle of Apollo when he did so. Cadamus is no initiate into
the mysteries of the Unseen, but neither is he a Sophist. He is more like Odysseus,
someone who is clever and uses his wits. He knows that he can trick the Men of
Earth into fighting each other. He knows that the men of earth will accept the
stopping of a Cow as the founding place of the city. He manipulates the men of
earth to lend him their strength to found a city. But unfortunately the city is founded
on a poor foundation because the men of earth make poor material for citizens and
the result eventually is the tragedy of Oedipus.
All this says is that Kierkegaard’s pattern has its precursor in Plato, although we
must combine different myths about the men sprung from the earth to get a
complete picture. But the fact that we find a philosopher within the Western
Tradition that comprehends the full field of the Kinds of Being is amazing. And this
comprehension comes from a meta-systemic deconstruction of Hegel, the system
1419
builder par excellence who builds his system within time. It takes the form of an
epic poem which produces an virtual reality in which the structural relations
between the characters can take form as a natural unfolding of the logos.
What is fascinating is the concept of the mapping between dissipation and paradox,
between autopoiesis and humor, and between reflexivity and irony. This
identification of human cultural artifacts and the special system gives extra depth to
these transitional points between the emergent levels of the Kinds of Being. Let us
look at this mapping in some more detail. We know that there are psychological
concomitants to each Modality of being-in-the-world. Let us see if those make
sense in relation to the identification of these psychological aspects of humanity.
Between the higher and lower religious affectations there exits paradox. Paradox
that itself becomes paradoxical (like the dialectical dialectic of Sartre’s Critique of
Dialectical Reason) becomes Absurd. But can we see paradox itself which we
identified with the self-sourcing waterfall of Escher or the Perpetual Motion
Machine be a hinge between pointing and grasping. Pointing relates to Pure
Presence (present-at-hand) and grasping relates to Process Being (ready-to-hand).
We can see the paradox in the idea of a hand grasping itself or pointing to itself. But
one hand grasping what another hand points to is an image of comprehension. Thus
it appears that we only get paradox when there is only one hand attempting to
gesture toward itself. As long as there are two hands each gesturing separately then
paradoxicality is avoided. For instance, two hands can be pointing at different
things and this is a picture of the antinomies. Two hands can be grasping each other
and this is a picture of resignation, perhaps the resignation of the sceptic. One hand
pointing and the other grasping what is pointed at is the image of comprehension.
Now let us look at the relation between grasping and bearing in relation to the hinge
of humor. Humor is something that is sometimes difficult to grasp. We do not
always ‘get’ the jokes of others. Saying a joke is always risky because others might
not receive it well. And if we are the brunt of the joke then it is something that is
difficult to bear. So there is definitely something concerned with grasping and
bearing with respect to jokes and humor. The opposite of comedy is of course
tragedy. Here in tragedy we are bearing up under our fate in seriousness. Palmer did
an interesting study of the phenomenology of Laughing and Crying. Tragedy and
Comedy are two cultural aspects that result in laughter or tears respectively. In
Tragedy the characters like Oedipus bear a tragic fate from the gods beyond their
comprehension. In comedy like that of Aristophanese Creon must bear the brunt of
his jokes and ridicule. In tragedy what is born comes form the Gods whereas in
1420
Comedy it comes from other men. In tragedy there is an inability to grasp which
slowly results in a grasping of the fatedness by the victim. This is shown when
Oedipus slowly realizes his crime and his fatedness. He then makes a scapegoat of
himself. In comedy what is grasped comes or not comes from other people. There is
also the period of not getting the joke and the moment of arrival when we get it an
laugh. So it is clear that it is possible to see humor as a hinge between grasping and
bearing.
Now is it possible to see irony as the hinge between encompassing and bearing. In
Plato we certainly see Irony as something all encompassing. We have no idea what
Plato actually thinks. And in fact he says all that he has written does not represent
what really interests him, which is in fact spiritual transmission of the spark of
enlightenment from soul to soul. So Irony definitely has the ability to be all
encompassing and when it is we are lost because we do not know what is true, real,
identical or present. Everything means something else than what is said and we only
can tell what is what from very subtle clues. Irony is the embodiment of the
mirrorhouse of the social world. In an ironic world everything is other than itself. It
is when the aesthetic surface has been tainted with the daemonic. The irony is
always the hidden pattern of deception imposed by the one who is ironic. Within
such a world of distorted mirrors facing other distorted mirrors it is impossible to
tell who you are and what anyone actually thinks of you. The defense is to be ironic
yourself. Where humor points out paradoxes irony raises humor to the nth degree
making everything humorous and by that disguising oneself. Being within an ironic
social fabric is difficult to bear except for very short exposures. Continuous
unrelenting irony is nihilistic to the extreme. Plato’s irony is nihilistic because it is
so unrelenting. But unlike humor there is no brunt to bear by a specific person.
Instead the brunt of irony is social. It is a taint of the social fabric itself by endemic
distortions. Thus everyone bears the brunt of irony together as it creates an
atmosphere where everything is a joke and nothing is serious. So individuals find
paradoxes when they think about the world. When they share them they become
jokes and are humorous but when the joke gets out of hand and infects everything
then we have irony. Irony is a society where everyone is deceiving everyone else
like that which Stendall writes about in The Red and The Black where the hero is a
hypocrite. Paradoxes we find by ourselves and keep to ourselves are merely
puzzling. But when we project those paradoxes into the social sphere as a joke then
they become funny. But when the paradoxes taint everything then we have irony
which is a distorted social fabric. But we can see the distorted social fabric where
we cannot see one which is not distorted. Jokes are revealed paradoxes. Paradoxes
1421
that we keep to ourselves merely remain quandaries within us. If we think of

ourselves as made up of paradoxes, i.e. that each desiring machine is a paradoxical
knot of energies interfering with each other, then the externalization of paradox is
the first level of the definition of the self which we see in Tragedy when the self is
defined in relation to the gods and in Comedy when the self is defined in relation to
the ridicule of others. When these externalized paradoxes deform the social fabric
itself then we see that fabric as irony or in the case of Deleuze and Guattari as
fascism. In the totalitarian state no one trusts anyone else, the entire society is
warped by deception.
As we move from paradox to humor to irony we can see the differences between
them in terms of the Kinds of Being. Pure Presence is what is straight and
completely unwarped. When we introduce the paradox we are creating knots of
interference within the smooth surface of what is Purely Present or always already
available. This produces the flows of process that attempts to get around the knots
in the stream of the continuous. Humor is the attempt to cut the gordian knot.
Humor uses juxtaposition to display the knot and make it visible within the stream
of what is purely present. But humor also suggests that there is an underlying
unconscious aspect to the world. Freud pointed out how the unconscious works in
jokes. There are genuine discontinuities that break up the illusion of continuity. The
juxtapositions of humor allow us to see those breaks that would be invisible
otherwise and allow us to negotiate the invisible barriers that jut out into our world
from nowhere. This unconscious aspect, the thing that never appears but whose
traces is everywhere is the sign of DifferAnce, or Hyper Being. We could analyze it
as Merleau-Ponty did as the hyper-dialectic between Process Being and
Nothingness. These two are antinomies. They cancel each other. Their cancellation
entails a burst of astonishment. That is the release that comes when we ‘get’ the
joke. That is in a moment we see the discontinuity, or disparity that is given into our
grasp. This unconscious aspect to manifestation is where deceit can insinuate itself.
The Ironic individual takes up that deceptive position. The irony is the difference
between Hyper Being and Wild Being. This is to say the irony is the realization of
the distortion of the social fabric itself, where the deceit that hides the ironic person
is seen everywhere. And when all the individuals take up this ironic stance then no
one knows where they are anymore and that is a fascism or totalitarianism of the
many against the one. It is a war of deceit of all against all. It is nihilistic to the
extreme. So here Wild Being is the social fabric itself while Hyper Being is the
position of the hidden individual. That hidden individual may be bound by moral
law or not. If not they become daemonic. The daemonic is the reflection of the
1422
hidden in the surface of the social fabric. When the hidden individual binds himself
by social law then the deceit is bounded and regulated by universal moral codes. If
they do not so bind themselves then the result is social chaos which Plato calls the
war of the all against. Here we approach the ground that has been covered in my
study The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void where I look
carefully at Platos cities and how he founds them. There he is dealing with similar
problems as those that we can see in Kierkegaard. But what is clear from this
analysis is that Kierkegaard is taking a tremendous risk in his use of pseudonyms
and the production of a fictitious virtual reality. We never know when Kierkegaard
is fooling us and when he isn’t. His works are written by the characters of an
unwritten epic or novel. So it is unclear whether Kierkegaard himself is possessed
by the Daemonic in the disguise of the Absurd. However, it is fairly clear that we
can in fact link the psychological modalities of pointing, grasping, bearing and
encompassing with the intermediate stages that correspond the special systems,
namely paradox, humor, and irony. In fact it is these intermediary stages that really
allow us to say that Kierkegaard is really describing the field of the Kinds of Being
in their transitions called the special systems that are dissipative, autopoietic and
reflexive. This analysis also gives us a much deeper insight into the cultural
embodiment of the special systems. Zeno plays a dissipative role by showing us his
paradoxes. Aritophanese plays an autopoietic role with his humor and ridicule.
Mutual ridicule tends to freeze everyone into caricatures of themselves. It is
interesting that we find the wisdom that Aristophanes claims in the parabasis to be a
description of the autopoietic system’s genesis in the fake theogony of the Birds.
Finally Plato’s irony is purely reflexive and ecstatic social production of a
mirrorhouse or a self-reflexive social fabric. The ironic taken to the extreme
mirrored in the surface of Wild Being is the Daemonic. Paradox taken to the
extreme and mirrored in the surface of Pure Presence is the Absurd. Spokesman of
the Absurd, Kierkegaard, cannot be told ultimately from the one possessed by a
Daemon except that we make non-nihilistic distinctions that lift us out of this
morass of mutual deception, mutual ridicule, and self-involvement in paradoxicality
where thinking thinks itself in a self-founding that is indicative of an Ontological
Monism.
It is very good to have found an example of a philosopher who understands the full
gambit of the kinds of Being and who conceived of analogs in human culture to the
special systems. In ontological terms Kierkegaard stands as a giant who was a
precursor to the Existential Phenomenological movement. He appears to have had a
presentiment of the whole unfolding of Continental Ontology in this century. He
1423
appears to have done this by inverting the philosophy of Hegel and producing a
metasystemic epic poem that countered the dynamic transcendental system in
history that Hegel saw. Out of these two dialectical opposites arose Nietzsche who
produced the first a-moral a-ethical anti-system. Kierkegaard is still attempting to
produce a meta-system that is the opposite of that produced by reason handling
contradiction by showing that ultimately we cannot handle the kinds of
contradiction posited by Christian religion. The paradoxes falling in on themselves
are too extreme to be transcended by reason. Nietzsche finds a position within the
Aesthetic that does not allow the self to form. So he has no fear when he says that
God is dead, as there is no self to be revenged upon. Nietzsche did not read
Kierkegaard. That is most unfortunate as he would have been the perfect foil for
Nietzsche’s atheism and amorality and anti-epistemology and anti-ontology. His
hatred of the transcendental and Christianity would have had an adequate adversary
against which to exercise his will to power. Nietzsche missed meeting his match
amongst the Christians. The one who could embrace the absurd and tell the
difference between it and the Daemonic. Kierkegaard’s whole enterprise turns on
whether he can really make that non-nihilistic distinction.
4. Layered Agents
[TBD]
5. Singlarities in the Fourfold
[TBD]
6. Meta-complementarity and multi-complementarity.
[TBD]
CODA: It turns out that the premise of this paper is wrong, and multi-way complementarity does
in fact exist. Note the Triality at the center of the Octonion algebra. See my later papers for a
recant on this subject at http://archonic.net and http://holonomic.net. Turns out that Arkady
Plotnitsky was right even though he could not give an example of such a multi-way
complmentarity in personal correspondance.
1424

Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory PalmerKD 2007v4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory PalmerKD 2007v4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflexive Autopoietic

Exploring the Meta-systems of Emergent Worlds

Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D.

kent@palmer.name Library of Congress

Copyright 2000 by Kent Duane Palmer Reflexive Autopoietic Systems Theory

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be 1. Philosophy-- Ontology

This draft book is published electronically by the

Keywords 908 The Problematic 1133

An Approach to Emergent Meta-systems

Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D.

Copyright 2000 K. Palmer. [TXu884397]

Latest version at URL

Ostensibly this paper is an introduction to the theory of Special Anomalous

2. Systems and Meta-systems

2. As does George Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. op cit.

We tend to mix up systems and meta-system views of phenomena because we

10. Koestler, A. [1978] Janus, A summing up. London: Hutchinson.

•Synchronic Gestalt (perceptual or conceptual gestalt) Figure on Ground.

•Diachronic Proto-Flow (explicit changing) Oceanus or Encompassing Stream. Solution changes

When we hear about Holonomic Nonduality and its relation to processes of

The philosophical approach to systems theory advocated in this essay is

metaphysical principles have been proposed by different philosophers. Parmenides

formulation embedded in Plato’s description of the autopoietic “second best” city in

Within the Western philosophical and scientific tradition, we normally project

Meta-systems are described very well by George Bataille as “general” or

fragmentation abounds. Para-clarity entertains the possibility of indistinctness where

Figure 1: Duality between Gestalt and Flow

GESTALT TEMPORAL FLOW

Figure 2: Duality of the Gestalt/Flow

Gestalt Perceptual Gestalt Temporal Gestalt

Figure 3: Duality of the Proto-Gestalt/Flow

Once we accept that all systems have meta-systemic shadows of undecidablity

This extension of General Systems Theory, place it in the context of a “global or

37. Sanchis, L.E. [1988] Reflexive Structures. N.Y. Springer Verlag.

General Systems Theory as defined by George Klir in Architecture of Systems

Structural Models MetaModels

structural meta structural meta-meta

structural SF meta structural

1.1 ARTIFICIAL LIVING KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM

To have deep understanding of a generative system requires a knowledge representation scheme

1.1.1. LEARNING SYSTEM

An example of a Meta-meta-meta learning system is Western science. In school we are taught

1.2.1. STRUCTURAL LEVEL SYSTEM

We can think of processes within processes controlling structures over time.

fusion at three levels.

Knowledge representation that emphasizes space over time is independent of interpretation

Wild Being Existence Hyper Being

Chiasm Finite Unthinkability

process/structure Beyond the meta-level of learning

{Proto-flow Source} {Proto-gestalt Origin}

Reversible Aspects Infinite Complexity

process over structure Separate structure and process

{Proto-gestalt Arena} {Proto-flow Oceanus}

56. See figure 15.

Figure 7: Relation between Special Systems and Epistemological Hierarchy of Klir

What we need to realize is that there are different thresholds of organization

Figure 8: Ontological Levels

Form68 > structural

The system and meta-system are complementary ways of looking at any

complementarity of system (gestalt or flow) and meta-system (proto-gestalt or proto-

The dissipative special system has been best described by Prigogine83 as

quaternion hyper-complex algebra95. This algebra is equivalent to the reflection

The reflexive special system is posited as the social extension of the

96. This insight due to Onar Aam.