<-- http://members.tripod.com/m_euser/blog/ --> Systematics: harmonizing fact and value
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
« January 2008 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Academics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Systematics: harmonizing fact and value
Monday, 24 September 2007
substance philosophy

To get a feel for the importance of substance in the continuity of life and many other issues, you could study books like: "The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time" by E. J. Lowe; Clarendon Press, 1998.

For now, I direct my attention to the process of creation as a whole, but I'll come back to considerations of substance when necessary to my investigations. Keep in mind that I use the old Eastern method of study: first get a global picture, then descend into more detailed descriptions. Ponder about these things and your intuition will develop alongside with your experience in life.

Posted by m_euser at 4:44 PM MEST
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Value adding

In my holonic model, value and meaning play a role in the whole of the process of the descent of the micro-element along the arc and the subsequent ascent. The macro-system can perform "judgments" as to what to do (a role for consciousness). The "levels" can in some sense be described as "spheres": on the left there is more emphasis on physical-energetic side (and information), on the right side there is more emphasis on principles of consciousness, although there may be visible expressions, like in (level of ) organization of production and distribution of substance or flow of value (money, esteem, mission statement, moral idea) through a system.

The supervisory role of will, c.q. consciousness, is conform the ideas of Assagioli, and some of that can be found in cognitive models of the mind, like ideas of Baars in his book "In the theater of consciousness". Keep in mind that this pertains to a global function. That is simply necessary to explain the workings of the system, to explain the integrity and autonomy of process. Consciousness as such is whole, transcending earthly time, while attention is partial and in time (transactional, I think).

The idea of substance as eternal and indestructable is very old. It is the necessary ground that makes the value experience possible. It is the only way the qualia problem can be solved! It connects the different levels. On the macro-level it can take the form of a kind of light-substance. Not only ordinary light, but also subtle forms of it exist. This light can carry a pattern (encoded, enfolded), not a strange idea since scientists and technologists have succeeded in artificial encoding of radio and television content as a superimposed signal on broadcast waves. The pattern is unfolded, decoded in later stages, notably levels 3 and 4. But this is all food for research when we research the producer subsystem in conjunction with input system, decoder, converter, etc.

Posted by m_euser at 9:48 PM MEST
Updated: Friday, 7 September 2007 10:40 AM MEST
Saturday, 1 September 2007
Objectification and De-objectification

The left side of the arc shows Objectification, the taking of distinct form, while the right side shows De-objectification, i.e. adding of value to the "object". In economic terms, valuing has to do with pricing, or money. In psychological terms, there's a range of values, especially on the social level (value judgments, norms), beliefs, etc. On the more abstract level there's aesthetic judgment and (internalized) moral values.

This passage from objectification to de-objectification is pretty well established in many quarters, including economy (as in adding value and price), esoteric teaching, and also in such theories as Leontiev's activity theory. See links





I did not convert to dialectical materialism, the thing is simply this: every research angle can yield some useful points of view, elements in the big mosaic of life. It's like the seven blind people touching the elephant in the parable. They each report a different structure of the elephant and couldn't understand each other. They fiercely disagreed as to how the elephant looked like. Yet, they all reported correctly about a small part of reality. So, look at the world from different angles and try to integrate different points of view, as far as is possible, logically and philosophically speaking.

Posted by m_euser at 1:58 PM MEST
Friday, 24 August 2007
Backup blog

On second thought, this blog will serve as a back-up blog for my blogspot blog. You never know what is going to crash when..

 The new blog is all about integrative science & philosophy. It is a natural philosophy about science in general, including the sciences, psychology, biology. A little excursion into spiritual realm and mythology may be made if necessary for the exposition of my ideas.
The main train of ideas comes from researchers like Jim Miller (Living Systems Theory), John Bennett (systematics), and Arthur Young (Theory of Process) or is related to these inputs. My background is physics, psychology and I have a good knowledge of diverse esoteric teachings.

 I am developing a true holonic model (first of its kind, I believe) of the manifest cosmos, especially as seen on our planet Earth. It entails a reinterpretation of Arthur Young's Theory of Process (TOP). As I do this in my free time, progress may be slow. Yet, it already looks very promising. You can have a look at the priliminary model:

There's a lot to be elucidated about the model, like the overlay/interfacing/interweaving of micro-development within the macrosystem, and a whole host of other things, not in the least the emergence of loops (reflexivity),  but I have to do some research on more examples first to make it a little clearer for you and myself.

If you have constructive comments to make, please do so.


Posted by m_euser at 11:06 PM MEST
Updated: Friday, 24 August 2007 11:14 PM MEST
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Model continued; similarity with Arthur Young model

The beauty of the model I sketched is breathtaking. It begins to look very much like Arthur Young's model, but I have to do more research on that. The devil is always in the details..

Basically, my model shows how an entity (a "seed") gains its independance thru the mediation of subsystems of a macro-entity. The seed that becomes a plant..the plant that generates the new seed. The cycle of life!

 As an addition to what I said in my previous postings I have to say that Arthur Young's idea of ionic and covalent bonds begin to make sense now to me. On level two there is attraction and repulsion, as shown in my example of the zygote. It is attracted towards the center of egg-production. Besides that there is the attraction of the parents-to-be on the reincarnating soul.  Even more impressive is stage 3, where we see the covalent bond, the placenta, the sharing between mother and child-to-be, necessary to feed the embryo and fetus.

Note the relation Pattern-Form, like genetic pattern and resulting form, through the mediation of the generative subsystem.

Also note the left side of arc as a development of form and basic function, until separation of "object" (fetus/baby) and "Self"/subject (mother) takes place. The right side of the arc shows cognitive/emotional development (a lot of research still needed). 

 PS: this blog is continued in a new format at:





Posted by m_euser at 10:34 AM MEST
Updated: Saturday, 25 August 2007 10:52 PM MEST
Monday, 13 August 2007
model continued (6); subsystems, dimensions

In addition to the previous posting: we see on level one (macrolevel) freedom of the system to procreate or not.  On the levels two to four we see subsystems at work, bringing a subsubsystem (a fertilized cell) to the stage of organism. Quite a thing that is happening there!

We can use the work of Jim Miller to correlate subsystems with these levels or (possible combinations of)  "stages" on diverse levels.  The streams of energy and information have been mapped by him as processed by subsystems (ingestor, converter, producer, extruder, decider; input, decoder, network (transmission, transport), encoder, etc., to name a few). 

It struck me that level two shows selection at work. In the previous posting there is a selection  of which of the sperms reaches the ovum and which one(s) penetrate the outer layer of it.  Another example concerns images: we get bombarded by images and some attract sustained attention. Do we pay enough attention to the images from within? At any rate, we evaluate images (unconsciously or consciously) and choose which ones we will develop further (give form, flesh and body).  The decider subsystem of Miller is at work here! See how important these considerations are for our well-being? These systems play a role in the creation spiral (Assagioli, Knoope, and others, to be dealt with): from wish to realization.

 Another thing to have a look at is the possible identification of eternal patterns with level one (which are reflected on level 3 as forms) and hyparxis with level two. Level three shows both of the above factors as there is a combination of forces/principles taking place here. All very tentative, but again with tremendous theoretical and practical importance. Level four as a combining operator must be researched as well.

Lastly, John Bennett  has developed some mathematical notions (four types of pencil, alpha, beta, gamma, delta in his work "Dramatic Universe, volume 1). He has extra "time"- dimensions added to the known four dimensions in physics. It is clear to me that patterns ("pattern-space")  qualifies as in some sense orthogonal to the four dimensions. It is like the ideal that can be realized: it even can have an ontological status as the image that is (on its own level) but not yet has become (in space-time). The hyparchic factor can qualify as a connector of some kind: it looks to me that it connects micro with meso, and macro with mesolevel. Very important, how else can levels communicate signals with each other? Whether it can be seen as a rotating factor that brings certain patterns to bear on physical reality remains to be seen. Such operations in an extended framework of dimensions may prove very insightful. They may, for example, finally solve the riddle of the instant correlation of photons (Alain Aspect experiment!).  The idea is that photons remain connected (but in another dimension! - perhaps their vibrational patterns remain coupled in pattern space (level one, wholeness) - which may be expressed through hyparxis via a lock in phase-relation). Scientists are always looking for invariances, so, here we may find something like invariance of phase-relation or something similar. But, I'm looking ahead a bit.


<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/creation+energies+form+hormones+binding+action" rel="tag">creation, energies, form, hormones, binding, action, energies, values, philosophy</a>





Posted by m_euser at 3:35 AM MEST
Updated: Monday, 13 August 2007 4:34 PM MEST
Saturday, 11 August 2007
model continued (5)

 An important step forward in developing the model is to have a brief look at the generative process. All through antiquity there have been philosophical speculations about the origin of our world and kosmos. See for example:



Being, Life and Intellect are principles that occur or are operative at each level or sphere of kosmos. We will have to remember that later on.

For now, I envisage to take level one in my model (the macrolevel) as where the "seed" is latent: the germ-plasm  is present in the parents-to-be. These parents are clearly macro relative to the seed they carry.There is a potential, latent, human being on level one, the person to be born.  However, it is not until the couple actively engages in the procreative act (driven by attraction, level two and three motivating forces, probably modulated by level one cultural/social influences and considerations)  that the  ovum is fertilized or "created". That activity is level two function, a social level, where an exchange of substances take place and messages are communicated.

The fertilized egg or zygote travels to its destiny, in the womb,develops into a blastula (with two poles: embryoblast, an inner cell-layer, and trophoblast (the outer cell-layer)) and has to bind to the intra-uterine wall, a critical stage where rejection, repulsion, can occur, leading to spontaneous abortion. Today, more is known about the mechanism of binding, the development of the trophoblast, the hormones involved, etc., so, we may refine our understanding of this whole process considerably. 

The question here is: "to bind or not to bind"! Talking about evaluation...

In level three and four we see the womb acting as a matrix for the embryo to develop its form and function.

These three stages are remarkably akin to the following, quoted from  

 http://jdt.unl.edu/emanate.htm :

" First, an initial identity of the product with its source, a sort of potential existence; second, an indefinite procession or unfolding of the product from its source, and third, a contemplative visionary reversion of the product upon its source, in which the product becomes aware of its separate existence and thereby takes on its own distinctive form and definition"

The third step looks very much like the instinctive awareness of the fetus, but certainly the birth-process is an often painful event where awareness of separation will be present (although not in a self-conscious form).

Level four in the Arthur Young model shows object-Self relationship and I like to take that level as the fetal stage where awareness of separate existence exists (fetus as "object") and  labor takes place ( birth, the presentation of "the product or object" to the outside world). We will have to look at the substages of level four, e.g. to substages six and seven (mobility and goal completion, birth proper?). 

BTW, level two is Self-object relation and here it is that the creation process occurs. Macro and meso create an object (fertilized ovum).

When the baby grows up to an adolescent it becomes capable of reproduction itself. By then it has developed  higher level (1 and 2)  functions.

Higher stages 5, 6, 7 can be seen as involving instinct/emotion, emotion/cognition and abstract thought/understanding, though we must be careful not to take this as a separation of these principles operating (subdivisions of kama, BTW, mixtures occur with prana, manas, etc.). Developmental literature shows that principles overlap or interpenetrate, sometimes portrayed as partly overlapping Gauss-curves (partly interpenetrating spectra of consciousness may be better!) . I do wonder about the operation of principles in the four elements/levels. It can get very complicated as we may see later in an example/analysis of the creation spiral. Nature mixes and combines! BTW, the left arc (stage 1, 2, 3, and 4) show formation while the right arc (stage 4, higher substages; stage 5, 6, 7) show instinct and development of cognitive-emotional functions (stage 6 and 7 especially for the latter functions).

This all pertains to the appropriate sublevels of the human fractal. We have to discriminate it all more in detail later and pay attention to phase transitions.


<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/creation+energies+form+hormones+binding+action" rel="tag">creation, energies, form, hormones, binding, action, energies, values, philosophy</a>



Posted by m_euser at 5:47 PM MEST
Updated: Monday, 13 August 2007 6:20 PM MEST
Monday, 6 August 2007
model continued (4)

Some additional remarks: 

1. The first level as macro-level has specific characteristics of being a gateway to  other macro-levels. To give an example: archetypes occur as symbols in thought and speech. Language forms a gateway from the individual to the collective, across space and time. Long after someone is dead, his or her words may continue to have an influence on people through written word, audio or videorecordings, etc. 

2.  The process of communication may yield fresh insights as to the usebility of the model. Four aspects of communication must be researched. 

3.  Human brain  has, relative to the body,  a global function. The neocortex is heavily involved in language and symbolic processing. Also, the brain influences organs locally by secreting hormones and neurotransmitters. These can be seen as messengers. 

4.  The second level shows evaluative function. The regulation of emotion through  norm and meta-emotion is subject of research.  Complicated networks of meaning arise through experience, education, etc.
There seems to be some inherent fuzziness associated with this  level (and sublevel two of levels in general). From elementary particles to ever shifting shades of meaning, all very fuzzy. 

5. On the cell level one can see the famous "key-lock" "mechanism"  operating in binding of substances to receptors. One can see this as an evaluative mechanism: a protein fits in the lock or it doesn't. If it does a whole sequence of steps follows (a program).

6. All the above bears testimony to the meta-model  I have sketched thus far. It must all be carefully reseached, of course.  Many more examples must be charted from literature and experience and some general observations and philosophical considerations must be made before we can conclude that the meta-model holds true in general. This model might subdivide in more detailed models subsequently, depending on the field of study.


<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/signal+energies+form+messenger+binding+action" rel="tag">signal, energies, form, messenger, binding, action, energies, values, philosophy</a>



Posted by m_euser at 10:17 PM MEST
Updated: Monday, 6 August 2007 10:28 PM MEST
Monday, 30 July 2007
model continued (3)

A few additional points are to be made in relation to the model I sketched in my previous posting.

1. A trigger can also be bottom up in the four level model, as when 'body' sends a signal to brain/mind that it is getting fatigued or  getting hungry.

2. A trigger can also be "horizontal" as coming from the environment (influence from other people(verbal, emotional, etc.), physical objects (bumping into something), etc.  Heterarchical connections refer to connections on the same level ("horizontal" ), while hierarchical relations refer to "vertical" connections. The latter can be inner relations (as mind to soul) or external (e.g, your boss or some authority figure).

3. The messenger is an intermediary between the trigger signal and the processing part. It may execute  an evaluating function.

4. This three-tiered approach can be related to ideas of John Bennett and Charles Sanders Peirce. Initiation, reception/processing  and mediation are very general concepts and widely applicable, I believe.

5. Very important is the idea of degrees of freedom (autonomous function vs causally determined  function).  While the original trigger in a process may be unpredictable (undetermined), the subsequent steps point to a loss of degrees of freedom. The intermediate step, the messenger, has a dynamic function, and thirdly, the program that is executed is by its own nature very much restricted. Analysis of this idea is very important, I think, because it does shed more light on the controversy of freedom vs determinacy, not the least of philosophical-scientific issues!

In accordance with the above,  I am doing some inventory of process.

As an example, think of contraction of a muscle fiber, comprising a.o. excitation-contraction coupling:  neuronal signal causes release of a neurotransmitter which by binding action generates an action potential that is propagated along sarcolemma and causes a whole program to be executed, leading to contraction of a muscle, work being done and relaxation.  No need to go into details here as I am simply doing a quick inventory. It is very easy to get sucked into details and lose sight of the big picture. Point is that there is (1) a trigger (neuronal signal), (2) a messenger (neurotransmitter), and (3) a program that is executed, leading to (4) work done, energy spent.

 Another example is that of the perceptive process: a signal from  outside of the organism is perceived by some sense (can also be a receptor in a single cell) and through an effector triggers the execution of a program. This can be an elaborate program consisting of many complex steps. This is something that happens on many levels: cell, organ, organism, etc.

 On the psychological level one can also think in terms of: perception, belief system, act.  Interpretation is obviously involved in this. The role of belief system as a filter is a vital one to consider. An event, the subsequent evaluation which brings forth an emotion, which has a regulatory role/function (and may trigger action) and the subsequent act (behavioural program) also points to a three tiered approach, I believe.
(This latter example may turn out to be very complex)

However the case, we can always zoom in or out of the fractal  human being to see more detail or focus on a larger picture.

BTW, the "program" or production of some form or change of form with subsequent work done involves two levels of the model, making four levels total.

I am sure  that many more examples can be found and will continue to dig a little further.  Remember: always keep an eye on the big picture!


 <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/signal+energies+form+messenger+binding+action" rel="tag">signal, energies, form, messenger, binding, action, energies, values, philosophy</a>

Posted by m_euser at 1:15 PM MEST
Updated: Monday, 30 July 2007 11:16 PM MEST
Friday, 27 July 2007
model continued (2)

While reviewing what I said about soul and spirit, I got the distinct idea that we have a simple model of process here, formulated in rather physico-chemical terms:

 1. There is a field, a potential difference

 2. A messenger is active (after a trigger or impulse/signal from within or above, the field). It binds directly or causes to bind something to a structure and

 3.  that act of binding causes a change in form of that structure, or causes  a signal/particle  to be transmitted to or into that structure

4.  thereby enabling some (local) action to take place. It could also trigger the execution of a program (such as to synthesize certain proteins, for example).

Iterations of steps may occur as we go from level to level, combining factors at work. The precise attribution to levels is something to be studied late, because we need to establish some criteria first as to which are the characteristics of these levels and whether there is overlap/interpenetration/integration of components in structures performing  functions involved in the process.

 This looks simple enough to investigate in several realms of life. One possibility is to study processes in a cell, or processes in the human body. Another possibility is to study psychological processes (behavioural, cognitive, etc.), after rephrasing the above sequence a little bit.  We will probably encounter exciting examples from which we can learn a lot, and there may be some lacunae in present knowledge that requires us to interpret or speculate a little. Maybe new hypotheses can be formulated as well. It all takes time, patience and perseverance as this whole endeavour is a rather new one, I believe. 

<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/signal+energies+form+messenger+binding+action" rel="tag">signal, energies, form, messenger, binding, action, energies, values, philosophy</a>

Posted by m_euser at 10:42 PM MEST
Updated: Saturday, 28 July 2007 12:17 AM MEST

Newer | Latest | Older

Academics Blogs - Blog Top Sites