Principle Sharing

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
Post Reply
daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

I am imagining a space in which agents(*) can share their principles in the form of a personal wiki. With root nodes holding their own set of "first principles". The communal aspect could encourage agents to explore alternative hierarchies and potentially modify their own. The trick is to keep agents from copying for popularity reasons, especially when the agent doesn't understand the principles they are copying. How could this be made to work in a way that agents with creative and authentic wiki's would shine and influence?

I started building my own wiki a few days ago using Zim (i.e. a desktop wiki application), and I enjoy the strict hierarchical structure as it forces me to think through dependencies. That is, Volution is at the root as if there is no chance at evolution/involution then why bother. Agent and Ground are sub-pages of the root Volution page, with Agent being in some sense groundless. The Ground page deals in widely agreed upon measures related to space, scale, time, and closure. The Agent page contains most of what I have explored here over the years (e.g. type theory, points/frames/maps/structures, SD, etc.).

Though, what I would like to emphasize is that my particular hierarchy is just one of an infinite number. Other roots could be "Reality", "Existence" or "Life". The possibility space is wide open, and the process of figuring out what principles matter to you can help bridge the Ti-Fi, systemic-authenticity bridge.

Any tangential thoughts on related projects or potential pitfalls are welcome!

(*) Likely with developed Ti or introverted thinking.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by jacob »

daylen wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:30 am
I am imagining a space in which agents(*) can share their principles in the form of a personal wiki. With root nodes holding their own set of "first principles".
Sounds like Ti/rationalism/critical thinking?! Once (before becoming an MBTI zealot) I thought this was the only way that humans could organize their subjective interiors and that any intersubjective disagreement would be either due to logical failure or a difference in axioms (principles).

However, what if induction dominates deduction? Then there are no "first principles". What if logic is not the mechanism, but feeling is? Then it becomes to hold two contradicting truths which would be paradoxical under logic but fine under other mechanism, e.g. history-free Se, vision-logic Ni or loving Fe.
daylen wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:30 am
The communal aspect could encourage agents to explore alternative hierarchies and potentially modify their own. The trick is to keep agents from copying for popularity reasons, especially when the agent doesn't understand the principles they are copying. How could this be made to work in a way that agents with creative and authentic wiki's would shine and influence?
But Copying is the starting point of almost every single construct.

Using some object-oriented terms to make it more precise, the aim would be to avoid copying intersubjective objects of deeper complexity than what one can handle subjectively (e.g. trying to understand WL7 from WL1) because that only leads to a kind of superficial shallow copy of the exterior. E.g. WL2 has an interior that only recognizes a budget and seeing WL7 in a budget lens leads to thinking of WL7 as living in poverty (because the budget is below the poverty line).

Thus is there a way to prevent the use of a lens on (hyper)objects that are too complex for the lens? Yes, jargon, holarchies (like WLs), experts, ... Is that universally accepted as a good idea? No postmodernists hate it because it's not inclusive enough.
daylen wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:30 am
I started building my own wiki a few days ago using Zim (i.e. a desktop wiki application), and I enjoy the strict hierarchical structure as it forces me to think through dependencies. That is, Volution is at the root as if there is no chance at evolution/involution then why bother. Agent and Ground are sub-pages of the root Volution page, with Agent being in some sense groundless. The Ground page deals in widely agreed upon measures related to space, scale, time, and closure. The Agent page contains most of what I have explored here over the years (e.g. type theory, points/frames/maps/structures, SD, etc.).
In the framework I've been building for the PiR that might never happen, I might have called it soul. The structure currently looks like an inverted pyramid going like: soul-philosophy-doctrine-strategy-tactics-skills-tools. Soul is depth, tools are at the very surface. (This is why every journey starts with trying to find some tool---a prosthetic for thinking.) My point here is that someone at, say, the strategic level, controls everything above strategy (tactics-skills-...) but it subtly/obliviously controlled by everything below (doctrine-philosophy-soul).

In trying to navigate this there is again the problem with deep copies. I can do a shallow copy of everything (talk words about it) but have I really incorporated all levels in my subjective interior. I doubt it.

I hope this was moderately useful.

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

Yeah, so the "first principles" are simply what appears as root and such can be shallow copied in that the agents are really only bouncing maps off their surface identity without reconciling them with their internal frames. Thus, I suppose I am curious how human communities can deepen their feelings by deeply sharing their thoughts. Publicizing hierarchies would put skin in the game, and the side commentary or passing of soft data would ensure the skin remains skin.

Wilber seems pretty adamant that going deep internally is how you spread your horizon of concern (i.e. how you develop). As this highlights the frames that matter to a mere bag of skin on Earth in a potential Sol in a Galaxy... induction from an Ni-Fi core to universal compassion and comprehension. Perhaps the external maps and structures being referenced stagnate the inductive process outwards by building deductive habits inwards. At the same time, it seems that in can be switched with out, leading to a similar argument for frames and points stagnating the exploration of external maps and structures. So, how can the inductivists and deductivists meet in the middle to share their paths in a way that deepens all/most paths involved?

User avatar
canoe
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:08 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by canoe »

@daylen I had a very similar idea. I've been calling it the "Coherent Ideology Wiki."

It would be a platform where each wiki page is a proposition in First Order Logic with some explanation or whatever. The thing is, each proposition has to be either labelled as either "foundational belief about the world" (ie axiom - like root nodes in your system), "empirical fact" (structurally the same as an axiom, but semantically different - maybe could help to wedge in the inductively-derived beliefs that @jacob mentions), or "derived from other beliefs" (provably - the platform would verify that there is a valid deduction from a new proposition to existing propositions if it isn't marked as one of the axiom types). If you add/change/remove a belief, the whole thing could recalculate and mark anything invalid or inconsistent.

Like you, I feel like it could be a good way to force yourself to be logically consistent or a good way for people/groups to learn about others' worldviews.

I haven't done any work on this idea, but if you or any other coders are interested, something in this general vein could be a fun open-source project.

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

@canoe I am for sure down to collaborate on a project. At some point, someone with a business plan may need to be involved and that's probably not going to be me. :)

I am wondering if perhaps the mastermind concept can be joined to the coherent ideology concept to produce a space where small groups can go to share some abstraction of their collective sensemaking capacity. That is, each member of a group would have more personal sharing of their own principles(*) within the group that are aggregated into statistics and visualizations that show how groups are thinking with flexibility in what is presented publicly about what they are thinking. Allowing for potential insights into what could be discussed between which groups based upon how each tends to think.

(*) Which may be of a more deductive or inductive quality.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Is this just a very nerdy version of doing a 1970s style Values Clarification Group Exercise Circle?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Okay, I may be way off base here, but what came to mind was a brief conversation I recently had with my youngest sister (who is also an ENTP) about Harari’s take on famous lines from Declaration of Independence. Nobody who is “modern” in their thinking still “holds these truths to be self-evident”, but the religious belief that each human possesses a “unique soul” still pervades our thinking and even our functional design. For instance, the notion inherent in ERE2 that CO2 dumping rights should be evenly distributed over human population of Earth. One could easily imagine another code where production was valued over unique humanity (because it is our de facto code.)

Anyways, I’m probably going to be clear as mud, but my ENTP sister and I had an instantaneous mind meld in our blown away reactions to this section in “Sapiens”, because post-modern or post-post-modern ENTPs are kind of obsessed with figuring out what is arbitrary. We will have no truck with useful fictions unless they are clearly stamped as such.

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

@7w5 Ideally there would be a memory of how principle/idea/fiction trees change over time. Allowing for tree reproduction and mutation with the possibility of accelerating cultural evolution (on the surface anyway). Below the surface it could fractionate cultures without deepening interpretation. Would seem like this is less likely with some kind of small group space for the involution of such trees.

It would seem that to crawl out of flatland, culture as a whole requires some kind of version control system that can approach the capacity for micro-reversions. Otherwise, constructions tend to collapse from their own weight. The constructions that currently stand do not require many layers of causal connections (e.g. reductive variations of physical & biological theories). Constructions that could potentially stand in a stable state require more layers than can be supported by the cultural infrastructure (e.g. psychology & non-reductive physical/biological theories). With a little support it may be feasible for culture to generate and remember trees rooted at every conceivable scale of reality and thus allow for a more fluid flow between believe systems.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by jacob »

daylen wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:59 am
@7w5 Ideally there would be a memory of how principle/idea/fiction trees change over time. Allowing for tree reproduction and mutation with the possibility of accelerating cultural evolution (on the surface anyway). Below the surface it could fractionate cultures without deepening interpretation. Would seem like this is less likely with some kind of small group space for the involution of such trees.

It would seem that to crawl out of flatland, culture as a whole requires some kind of version control system that can approach the capacity for micro-reversions. Otherwise, constructions tend to collapse from their own weight. The constructions that currently stand do not require many layers of causal connections (e.g. reductive variations of physical & biological theories). Constructions that could potentially stand in a stable state require more layers than can be supported by the cultural infrastructure (e.g. psychology & non-reductive physical/biological theories). With a little support it may be feasible for culture to generate and remember trees rooted at every conceivable scale of reality and thus allow for a more fluid flow between believe systems.
With the caveat that I might be misinterpreting/projecting too much... but consider JMG's response to Lovelock's tech bible or various other "how to reboot/reconstruct" civilization using "what's written down". From the perspective of Ni, I struggle with translating what I think into words whether spoken or written. There's usually much more to be said about a given issue than I can say. In my world, talking is like communicating paintings in morse code. I know for sure that scientific publications alone will not recreate scientific culture.

The question is whether this project captures a way of thinking or whether it captures thoughts-about [...].

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

jacob wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:17 pm
The question is whether this project captures a way of thinking or whether it captures thoughts-about [...].
It would seem that Ti or map internalization turns thoughts-about (i.e. parsing symbolic forms) into a way of thinking (i.e. matching forms to paintings). So, the utility of such a project in the eyes of individual users is heavily dependent on where Ti is in the stack and is also probably more suited to Ne-Si in front stack making incremental changes. There will always be some loss in translation when considering the exhaustive supply of frames and points, thus in isolation, the project would essentially be flatland inside flatland but in cooperation with some other cultural methodology that supports Ni/Fi it may help multiply ways of thinking.

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

Now I am trying to imagine something in-between straight up wiki sharing and magic the gathering. Except, instead of trading cards you have principle tiles that can be used as base elements in building maps. With various kinds of games, like for instance Sherlock induction(*), which gives a blank tree with a few of the small branches filled in with tiles. The objective being to figure out what the general situation or root is. Some tiles could have strict and loose variants that may enforce what tiles come above or below it in a given tree.

I suppose then the primary distinction from a card game would be an overall goal to synthesize knowledge that is of a less fictional bent.. then again, there are all these fictional fandom wiki's that help train deduction/induction in their limited context without the risk of eroding hard-earned institutional knowledge.

(*) The BBC Sherlock always talks about deduction but he uses induction. INFJ btw

daylen
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by daylen »

Perhaps something like GitHub is filling the niche described quite well with skin in computability. Thinking about using Hugo to create a simple wiki site with github pages.

A thriving community of non-academic researchers/coders(*) that could aid academia in the agent simulation field would be cool.

(*) that is, book&bit-slingers.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Principle Sharing

Post by GandK »

My fear is that the implied intellectual purity test here would deter people who either aren't yet certain how they want to build their life but would find value in exploring others' points of view, or who are comfortable juggling multiple paradigms without judging between them, from participating in such a Wiki. And that would leave your project with serious blind spots, not to mention a No True Scotsman culture.

Also, I doubt anyone inclined to participate in a project about personal truth would copy ideology, but anyone who feels insecure about his own verbal ability and admires another person's way of expressing himself on the same subject could easily copy wording. Would that disqualify him?

@daylen, love the MtG idea! :lol:

Post Reply