Parametric Glossary: From the Manuscript-In-Progress

Here’s some excerpts from the manuscript-in-progress. I made this short glossary to help myself review some key concepts in one section to prepare for editing the next section after a break in writing. The terms described here, or parameters, can be thought of as the logics of networks, beyond that presented in the four network elements of diagrammatology.


“. . . networks in the wider world intertwine aspects of the network diagram in such a way as to give rise to a wide variety of particular forms. The concepts of these forms, known as parameters, are secondary in abstraction only to those of the network diagram, and describe the manner in which the network diagram manifests in the wider world. Parameters condense and display the intertwining of the networks as they manifest in individual networks as relatively unified forms. Describing the manner in which networks may be known, parameters are concepts abstracted from networks, and manifest the unity-in-difference of the logic of the node both in how they describe networks, as well as in their conceptual form. As we will see, there are several types of parameters, including those of intensity, type, context, and emergence, each manifesting the logic of the concept of one element of the network diagram.”

“Determinations of intensity are always relative, for we can only say that an entity is large or small in comparison to other entities, or in relation to a third entity which serves as a standard for determining relative degrees between them. Any standard of comparison or standard of reference can be subdivided into units of degree (more will be said about what is meant by metric, measure, and quantity later in the section on parametrics).”

“It must not be thought that the parameters of intensity which manifest in relation to a given entity or context are absolute. Rather, they manifest due to the nature and form of the entity in relation to the context in question. Thus, it would be a mistake to think that the notion of size or strength provide us with absolute categories for thinking the world. To do so would be to fall into a sort of categorical illusion which is ultimately an overreliance on the logic of the node. As we will see, the types of parameters of intensity appropriate to a given entity or context is determined by other parameters which manifest the logic of other elements of the network diagram. In this sense, we see how each intensity therefore has a set of contexts in which it manifests, and this is known as that parameter’s field of manifestation. No matter how general a intensity may seem, it is always manifests in relation to a particular field which serves to limit it, and the countours of this field are precisely what relative, absolute, and network limits serve to describe. ”

“Each type is at once particular and general, for there are both dogs in general as well as particular dogs, horses in general as well as particular horses, etc., and the type describes that which links these with each other and that which allows them to form. Types describe the manner in which particular sets of intensities cluster together in relation to particular sets of circumstances which arise between entities and their contexts. That is, types are knots of intensities . . . All types are intensities, but intensities which serve to describe the manner in which other intensities cluster, limit, and knot together. Types link intensities, limits, and fields, by means of the knot of the form of the type in question, in a manner which describes both particular entities and how they manifest in general.”

“Even if an entity is singular, it has the potential to become a type, for types are what is abstracted as common between entities in a group.

“there is strong reason to believe that our notion of H20 resonates strongly with a type which exists in the world, and that our sense of the qualities which pertain to this type resonates strongly with that which pertains to this type in the world. While we have discussed the type described by H20 by means of the term ‘H20,’ it must be kept in mind that the term is only a shorthand for the type in the wider world. H20 serves as an example of the more general manner in which any collective noun, from H20 to liquid, dog, metal, or any other, can serve to describe what is meant by a type. And while we could call any of these by any name, what matters is not the name given, but rather, the formal resonance between the concept used by humans to describe a type, and the type in question in the world. When an attempt is made to link a given type with a given name, we call the former an undertype, and the latter an overtype. Producing resonances between under- and overtypes is much of the work of learning about the world. Since humans cannot know all the contexts relevant to a given entity or type, it is impossible to know completely which qualities and limits pertain to a type, and hence, it is impossible to know all the qualities and limits relevant to an entity or type.”

“. . . three types of qualities at work in the world: determinative, formative, and manifestory.

“The sum of the formative qualities of any entity is a meta-quality or type known as its form, which is shared, as are all qualities, between both entity and type. A form describes the manner in which the sub-entities which comprise any entity are combined”

“The nature of any entity is the type which describes the other relevant network types which apply to it. These include that entity’s form, sub-entities, or formants, and its affectants.”

“Affectants are the aspects of an entity which allow it to be affected by its contexts. There are two types of affectants: determinants and manifestants. Determinants combine with aspects of the context of an entity, known as  determiners, to produce a determinatory complexes which are partially within and partially outiside of the entity. The result is that determinatory qualities are produced from the interaction of the entity and its contexts, in a process known as determination. Determinants are those aspects of an entity which produce form from the sub-entites, or formants, which compose the entity. Manifestants combine with aspects of the context of an entity, known as manifestors, to produce manifestory complexes which are partially within and partially outside the entity. The result is that manifestory qualities are produced from the interaction of the entity and its contexts, in a process known as manifestation. Determinants and manifestants may be composed of aspects of both the sub-entities and form of a given entity, which are then combined with aspects of the context of that entity to form affective complexes, which give rise to affections known as influences and actions. Determinants, formants, and manifestants are three types of aspects of an entity which in relation to its contexts produce qualities, and hence are known collectively as qualitants. Manifesters and determinors are known as qualitors, or those aspects of entities which influence the production of qualities from its context, while manifestory and determinatory complexes are known as qualitative complexes, for they describe the complexes composed between an entity and its contexts which combine to produce qualities.”

“Parameters of ground . . . come in three types: contexts, logics, and rules . . . Rules, like types, do not impose themselves on that which they describe, but rather, are abstractions therefrom. Rules describe the manner in which the various included exclusions relevant to an inclusion intertwine with that inclusion so as to determine the boundary between them. The result is complex forms of intertwinings of entites and other entities in yet more encompassing contexts, via relations between entities and contexts. The types of relations formed from the intertwining of contexts and rules are known as logics, and logics are that which, via contexts, are continued, altered, produced, or dissolved in dynamic relation with rules. While particular forms of contexts, logics, and rules describe particular parameters of ground, contexts, logics, and rules, when considered as such, are the three general or network contexts which pertain to all networks as such.”

“Any entity is precisely what it is by means of what it excludes, and these are known as that entity’s contexts, or inverses . . . absolute inverse, which ultimately, is the rest of all that is minus the entity in question. The most restricted inverse relevant to a given entity in a given network is all those other aspects of the network it excludes, and this is called that entity’s network inverse. From the most restricted inverse to the most encompassing are varying degrees in between, and these are known as relative inverses. These come in three primary types, namely, those which are inside of a given entity, knowns as interior, or micro inverses, and those which outside of a given entity, or exterior, or macro inverses. Level inverses, or meso inverses, which describe the exclusion of all that is at the same level as an entity.”

“The manner in which an entity’s contexts determine an entity’s form is known as structure. Structure is the dynamic set of pressures that the context of an entity put on a form, and which determine that form. Contexts structure form, such that form is the cutting edge of structure, the interpenetration of context into an entity as that which is neither fully outside it nor inside it. For form determines the manner in which nature of sub-entities relate, even as these natures are determined by the form and nature of their sub-entities, and the structure of a given context determines the form and hence nature of the entity itself . . . When a context is considered as a set of structure-entity complexes, it is known as a relation, and all the structures in a relation are known as its structural complex.”

“If types are like meta-qualities, then rules are like meta-types, for they describe which qualities map to which types and vice-versa. For example, dogs bark, and cats meow. The fact that dogs bark and do not meow, or neigh, or quack, is an example of a rule. There is nothing universal about this rule, for in fact, if dogs were to evolve the ability to quack, and lose the ability to bark, then we would say that dogs quack, and no longer bark. And as we have already said, these notions are to be considered undertypes, and as such, not to be confused with the language being used here to described them (ie: we could call quacking and barking by other names, and perhaps even our concepts do not line up with these types in the world, etc.) . . . It must be remembered that rules, like intensities and types, only apply in particular contexts, or fields, and are not universal, and are simply the abstraction of what the groups it describes do in the world. Rules therefore do not control, but describe, as with types. Rules in fact only exist, as with types, by continually reproducing themselves via dynamic processes in the world as performed by the groups they describe.”

“Rules are the syllogisms of a structure, they link particular and general, entity and type, by intertwining form and nature with structure and qualities.”

“From the rules relating entities and contexts via types, we can abstract the most general rules, the types of rules, or meta-rules, which allow contextualization to serve as the ‘linking words’ of the world. The set of meta-rules, when presented in its most abstract form, is known as logics . . . There are three primary logics which relate to all networks: negation, implication, and syllogism, or inclusion . . . The first type of logic, known as negation, comes in three forms: conjunction, disjunction, and inverse . . . The second type of logic is known as implication, and comes in three forms: conjunctive, disjunctive, and modulatory. The first, conjunctive implication, takes the form of ‘if . . . then’, and describes a relation of causality, while disjunctive implication, takes the form of ‘if . . . and only if,’ and describes a relation of reciprocal causality. In addition, there are states of implication which are partial, and this is known as modulation. Modulation comes in threeand forms: coordination, opposition, limitation, and emergence.”

“The third and most complex type of logical relation is known as inclusion, or syllogism, which also comes in three forms, or modes: truth, possibility, and potential. All of these introduce time and change into logic. Syllogism describes the manner in which an entity and its type include each other, whereby groups generate types, contexts generate entities, and these intertwine in a manner whereby the past extends into the future via change in the present. While syllogism is a logical relation, and hence may be thought of as a connecting word, it represents a particular intermediate type with that of parameters of emergence, which may be thought of as the world’s verbs. This is because the singular verb, the verb ‘to be,’ is that which links connecting words and verbs, logics and emergence. Syllogism describes the manner in which entities, groups, and types include each other in particular, relative, and abstract forms, as past changes into future by means of the dynamic present, linking an entity to its type via qualities, as mediated by the relevant contexts, rules, and logics.”

“There are various types of parameters of emergence, which are known as those of emergence, complexity, and level . . .parameters of emergence describe the processes of which entities are themselves aspects, and thus, display how it is that entities exceed themselves by emerging from what they once were . . . ”

“Particular parameters of emergence describe particular processes, the world’s verbs, that which is described by terms such as growing, running, and flying, yet also greening, tree-ing, and conjoining (which are examples of verb forms of parameters of intensity, type, and ground, respectively). All parameters of emergence have particular, relative, and abstract aspects, which shows the manner in which parameters of emergence manifest the logic of syllogism.”

“. . . actualization, is the particular network parameter of emergence, and it has three aspects, namely, potential, actuality, and actualization. As entities emerge from themselves, we say that they pass from a state of a potential for emergence to that which is actual, by means of process of becoming, unfolding, actualizing, or actualization. All potential is only potential in relation to its contexts, and it is for this reason that we say that it and what it develops into, namely, actualization and actuality, are particular parameters of emergence. For in fact, potential, actualization, and actuality are simply abstractions of the manner in which emergence particularizes itself, such that emergence only exists as potential for actualization and actuality in its particular forms.”

“If particular network parameters of emergence describe the manner in which entities emerge in the world, relative network parameters of emergence, or parameters of time, describe the manner in which these can be compared with each other.”

“As abstract parameters of emergence, duration, differing, and differentiation describe the manner in which emergent processes relate to themselves. According to the networkological project, all entities are ultimately aspects of the processes of emergence which give rise to them, and we see this in the fact that while particular emergents act as actual and potential for each other, in the most abstract sense these particulars are themselves always manifestations of processes . . . Differentiation is what links together abstract, particular, and relative parameters of emergence. That is, when an aspect of emergence differentiates itself, it endures in its differing from its contexts in a manner which actualize potential.”

“Complexity is . . . the increase in the intensity of emergence, and as such, may be thought of as meta-emergence . . . as intensification as such . . . it intensifies is itself in the process of emerging from itself in ever greater intensity.  Complexity comes in three primary forms. Potential complexity is the potential for the increase in the intensity of emergence, actual complexity is what the increase in the intensity of emergence which potential complexity gives rise to, and actualizing complexity is the process of the intensification of emergence itself. And as we will see, emergence intensifies as complexity in the process of its active differentiating intertwining with itself. Complexity may therefore be defined as the active process of differentiating intertwining. And the complexity of any particular entity is the intensity of the potential of other entities to actualize through it with greater intensity by means of their mutual intertwining in its process of actualizing . . . the more an aspect of complexity intertwines its actualizing with that of others, the more potential its actualizing can actualize.”

“Actualizing complexity, complexifying, or complexification, is in fact the form of potential complexity with the greatest intensity, for it is actively in the process of complexification of itself and its relation to the world around it. Unlike emergence, which either is or isn’t, complexity potentiates itself . . . dormant complexity is known as complication, and an aspect of this is known as a complicate, intricate, or complicated system, as opposed to an aspect of complexity, which is known as a complex, or a complex system.”

“There are three primary parameters of complexity: diversity, symmetry, and meta-stability. If complexity may be defined as actualizing differentiating intertwining, then then these three parameters may be seen as the reified states which appear in particular aspects of the world as parameters which indicate the preconditions, results, and determinations of relative intensity of complexity in its particular manifestations. For if complexity is actualizing differentiating intertwining, diversity describes is the intensity of differentiating, symmetry is the intensity of intertwining, and meta-stability describes the intensity of actualizing. In all these forms, and due to the self-differentiating, self-potentiating, intertwined nature of complexity, its parameters are at once conditions, results, and relative determinations of intensity of complexity and of each other.”

“The simplest form of symmetry, known as formal symmetry, describes the manner in which the form of an entity remains the same despite changes around it . . .”

“When symmetry allows entities to work together in a manner which produces new form at a higher level of scale, for example, in a vortex in liquid water, we have an example of the second form of symmetry, namely, sync, intertwining, or actualizing symmetry. Sync is that which gives rise to formal symmetry, for all formal symmetry at a given level is the result of sync at lower levels of scale. That is, all that is seemly static at one level is simply a symmetry within dynamic conditions at lower levels of scale.”

“Finally, there is variable symmetry, or dynamic formal symmetry. This form of symmetry occurs when formal symmetry is variable in relation to its contexts. There are three forms of variable symmetry, which are passive, active, and differentiated.”

“Meta-stability is a state of tension between multiple potentials. Once an entity in a meta-stable state settles into one stable state or another, it ceases to be meta-stable. Meta-stable states occur both when a system changes due to an increase in the intensity of its interactions between itself and its contexts, as well as a decrease. The first form of meta-stability is known as intensifying meta-stability, while the latter is known as de-intensifying meta-stability. Only the former leads to an overall long-term increase in meta-stability . . . systems which are able to combine stable and meta-stable sub-systems are able to maximize the increased intensity present within both, so as to form a yet more complex synnergy between them, known as an active internal meta-stable state, which is opposed to a passive external meta-stable state . . . populations may be said to be relationally meta-stable, for such a collective has the potential to take on a meta-stable relation to its own meta-stability, and in fact, develop a higher level emergence known as meta-evolution. Meta-evolution . . . .Meta-stability, diversity, and symmetry describe complexity in its three parameters. Increase one, and you increase the others, but each always destabilizes, to some extent, the others, such that only their coordination leads to a definite increase in complexity.”

“Levels of sync occur when entities coordinate their actions such that they come to have a form together as a whole which is distinct from that of the entities themselves . . . The converse of a level of sync is a level of structuration. This occurs when multiple entities emerge from the same or similar contexts in a similar manner . . . Beyond levels of sync and structuration, there are levels of intensity. These are levels of emergence which describe the intensity of the emergence relevant to a particular entity.”


~ by chris on June 9, 2011.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: