Typed agents turning zones communally as a spiral.

[daylen]

I would like to expand this model out here and document the process of interlinking all the degrees of freedom. First off, what are those degrees of freedom?

Type
1. Masculinity / Femininity (2 degrees).
2. Quadras as shared conscious & subconscious functions (4 degrees).
3. Temperaments as NT, NF, SP, & SJ (4 degrees).
4. Alignments as (lawful, neutral, chaotic) x (good, neutral, evil) (9 degrees).
5. Enneagrams as (body, heart, mind) x 3 (9 degrees).
6. Functions/punctures as Ne, Si, Ni, Se, Te, Fi, Ti, & Fe (8 degrees).
7. Types as perception and judgement pairs (8 or 16 degrees).

State-Space-Time
Space as three, reversible dimensions and the arrow of time as a single, irreversible dimension.

State as a spectrum from high alertness to low alertness (5 or infinite degrees):
1. Gamma for motor functions and higher mental activity.
2. Beta for normal waking functions, default mode network, irritability, & identification.
3. Alpha for relaxed yet engaging flow states that balance challenge with competence.
4. Theta for memorable, restful, & fantastical dream-like activity.
5. Delta for deep sleep or the unconscious.

Turnings (16 degrees)
1. High with mid-age heros.
2. Awakening with mid-age artists.
3. Unraveling with mid-age prophets.
4. Crisis with mid-age nomads.
x
1. Childhood
2. Early adulthood
3. Middle age
4. Elderhood

With the middle-age, leader generations weaving together a narrative along the lines of.. heroes emerge during a high through the translation of points/intuitions into frames/feelings, artists emerge during an awakening through the translation of frames/feelings into agent cross-sections or interactions, prophets emerge during an unraveling through the translation of agent interactions into maps/thoughts, and nomads emerge during a crisis through the translation of maps/thoughts into structures/sensations.

origin point -> early frame -> agents of order/chaos -> late map -> end structure

Zones (8 degrees)
1. Phenomenology as inside view of an ego.
2. Structuralism as outside view of an ego.
3. Hermeneutics as inside view of egos.
4. Ethnomethodology as outside view of egos.
5. Cognitive science as inside view of an eco.
6. Empiricism as outside view of an eco.
7. Social autopoiesis as inside view of ecos.
8. Systems theory as outside view of ecos.

Spiral (3-8 degrees)
1. Archaic
2. Magic
3. Mythic
4. Rational
5. Pluralistic
6. Integral

or

1. Pre-Faustian
2. Post-Faustian / Pre-Rational
3. Post-Rational

[daylen]

Micro: Typed agents in state-space-time.
Messo: Turning zones.
Macro: Communal Spiral.

[daylen]

Here is the glue, so to speak, that can potentially tie stuff together. Where, for instance, types could be drawn as expansions and contractions that are mirrored between the gross and subtle realities. The functions may align with or be tangent to turnings. The turnings potentially uniting or dividing the zones. With an overall spiral emerging as an oscillation between dividual and interdividual OR outcomes and processes.

[daylen]

One approach is to extend the car model of personality. The driver being in charge and corresponding to the dominate function/punctuation. The front seat passenger being able to make suggestions and aid the driver with directions corresponding to the secondary function/punctuation. The two back seat passengers corresponding to the third and forth functions/punctuations. The driver and front seat passenger both mirrored into the back seat passengers, as if the kids misbehave the parents may need to intervene (symmetrically or asymmetrically).

Extending to the turnings, the car as a whole may be thought to make many incremental turns/adjustments on the path towards the destination. The destination ultimately being death that brings new life. The arc of the life on the longest wavelength potentially peaking in the middle with childhood and elderhood on either side. Perhaps matching up to ego resurrection and dissolution in a way that implicates a single major turn in life to bring about new life after death in the eternal dance of volution.

A life potentially turning sharply during a high, an awakening, an unraveling, or a crisis. With the trailing, collective memory after death tending to mythologize lifelong roles as either a hero, an artist, a prophet, or a nomad. The myths endure as crude, fantastical stories that cultures of the future tell to remember their own becoming roles in the turnings yet to come. To what extent are these myths needed in a hypothetical social configuration that is not contingent upon starting and ending points? To what extent do the agents of order and chaos rewrite the myths to center their own avatars in the volutionary cross section of evolution and involution? How to transcend and include avatars in the myths to come?

In the meantime, turnings of the gross car across the messo scale differentiate and integrate zones of methodology. The subtle car inverting all turns made on a parallel street, in a parallel verse. On the sidewalk outside of the gross and subtle cars, the rubber leaves the road. The methods branching into right and left hand paths, marching forward with left and right foot steps. The alpha flow state of driving between destinations in the mythology to come are disrupted in a beta frenzy of irritation and identification with the avoidance of steps towards the irritant.

Avoid stepping for long enough in a green enough area and state slows to a near halt that dissolves the boundaries between destinations. A persistent reminder of the finitude of life elevates the gross and subtle drivers into a superposition of egoic potential fertilized from low frequency currents spiraling indefinitely.

[daylen]

Archaic origins stretching back towards the depths of agency thought to identify away from irritation (at least cells). With some degree of creativity and intensity in even the parts of the particles yet to be felt as subtle vibrations below the interaction tables that fill our thoughts. As an expectation solidifies into a configuration, an outcast of violent fluidity takes revenge upon formation through state transitions that appear as magic to the keen eye penetrating I's projecting onto things. Magical punctures in the expected path extends towards final resolution of the initial irritant as a pulsating non-linear equation visualized as a tree and its shadow inverted with tangled branches hinting upon a cyclic return to source. The returning from the descent of combinatoric confusion to source ignites a persistent sharing amongst common agents into myth. The communion fragments upon inconsistent references to the source and labeling of branches reveals the deeper subjectivity that projects back into the objective realm once considered grossly unified through meta-stories. Rationality emerges in limited interpretation of stories as simplified metaphor tied to zero and branching towards infinity. Functions, chained and composed, are grown into radical configurations which suggest mythic singularities in rational and eventually relational forms of engage. Engagement with the elemental relational blocks pluralizing the measures once considered pivotal to the mythical reduction. The differentiation of identification calling for a re-integration back to source with a growing yet simultaneously shrinking chasm of unification.

[daylen]

Each swing in the spiral that transcends human form to include all that was intent-full and all that will be intentional suggesting a novel set of turns each volutionary vehicle carrying crystals between generations can take to impact all time increasingly as undetectable waves near the surfaces of black holes and particles holographically encoding all that was. Each swing retaining the prior turning frequencies and adding additional turning frequencies resulting in posterior expansion and contraction of agents.

[daylen]

There are at least two paradigms for integrating ego with eco where ego focuses on something like identification and eco focuses on something like instrumentation.

Computational Paradigm
1. Reality = ego + eco is finite.
2. Models must be statefull (i.e. specify more than one state).
3. Models of reality are tested through implementation on a finite state machine that halts.
4. Implementations contain implicit identities and instruments.
5. True randomness is impossible.
6. Replaces "infinity" as "unboundedness".

Mystical Paradigm
1. Reality = ego + eco is infinite.
2. Models are stateless.
3. Models of reality are tested through identification of instruments and instrumental identification.
4. Identities and instruments are explicitly contained in reality.
5. True randomness is possible.

Each paradigm results in a different [yet compatible?] interpretation of the incompleteness theorems, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. Still working this out, though. I suspect the computational paradigm reduces math to computational math, favors local interactions, and requires the universe to terminate, while the mystical paradigm ignores algorithmic determination, favors non-local interactions, and allows the multiverse to cycle indefinitely.

[daylen]

Supernatural abilities of agents may appear as utterly fantastical from within the computational paradigm yet mundane from the mystical paradigm. Thus, if more evidence of remote viewing, telepathy, clairvoyance, and so forth are found then the mystical paradigm gains favor. So far this evidence is dismal yet existent from my vantage point. The computational paradigm can explain such away as insanity or as mistakes for now.

The computational paradigm would tend to under-fit reality, and the mystical paradigm would tend to over-fit reality.

The trippy thing is that each paradigm treats evidence rather differently. Perhaps the mystical paradigm needs its own version of Bayes theorem.

[daylen]

This may be used as a geometric diagram demonstrating the topological connection between paradigms that deal or communicate in systems. With paradigm0 linking to the mystical paradigm and paradigm1 linking to the computational paradigm(*). Interestingly, each would offer a different interpretation of geometric figures. The mystical paradigm idealizing such figures as completed limits of mathematical functions (i.e. the platonic view), and the computational paradigm treating geometry as the representation of too many parts to count.



(*) Since 0 is sometimes considered a completed limit and procedures tend to be indexed at 1+ as countable sequences (1, 2, 3 or 1, 1/2, 1/3 etc.).

[jacob]

The computational paradigm would tend to under-fit reality, and the mystical paradigm would tend to over-fit reality.

The trippy thing is that each paradigm treats evidence rather differently. Perhaps the mystical paradigm needs its own version of Bayes theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Insisting on repeatability strongly limits the the kind and amount of possible "laws" (<- for lack of a better word). Modern physics is even constructed by asserting a limit (like e.g. a symmetry) and then exploring what's possible under such a limit. It's essential a meta-theory for generating possible universes (which can even be counted and numbered) under a set of constraints.

[daylen]

I suspect that Karl Friston's work on the free energy principle could be used to more rigorously link the gross and subtle metaphysical compasses to statistical and perhaps even synchronous methodology. With point, frame, agent, map, structure essentially being a nesting of Markov blankets. Perhaps only the agent level is assumed to be sufficiently sentient to act on sensorium. The map and frame blankets being mirrored with "less" sentient forms of "action" and "sensation". With point-structure combinations being bounds on what an agent can perceive internally and externally [with potential known unknowns]. With something like the minimization of surprise or prediction error helping to setup a Lagrangian of agent action across a lifetime interpreted with various map-frame combos.

[daylen]

Points and Structures may then be black boxes that can be interacted with to receive some response as an agent. The response may be spread thinly across all of reality and thus not render as evidence to the agent that can potentially change their model (of themselves or existence).

[daylen]

Maps and Frames being grey/opaque boxes that an agent can peer through from within or without(*). The agents themselves being clear boxes that merely serve as a reference boundary at the edge of the internal and external realities which unite into one yet may be split for self-evidencing and self-modeling.

(*) That is, maps are always outside agents and thus agents peer from within them, and frames are always inside agents and thus agents peer from without them.

[daylen]

Kegan3 being a frame/map set controller that can semi-coherently identify through framing and instrumentalize through mapping. Kegan4 developing through a self-evidencing and self-modeling process that implements a self-boundary through identification and instrumentalization. Kegan5 transcending original self-model to include agents of various orders that blanket prior maps or frames towards an eternally posterior structure or point.

[daylen]

Thus, an agent would tend to start off heavily embedded into the mystical paradigm while scouring a seemingly infinite set of various selves, then the agent may approach a self-model and stabilize at the computational paradigm around K4 before potentially inducing a destabilizion process that re-integrates mystical elements that may appear as seemingly infinite and instantaneous context switching.

[daylen]

A self-evidenced and self-modeled agent may probe the external structure of existence by changing their sensorium through action in conjunction with receiving the external structure of existence that changes their sensorium (i.e. planning an observation and recording data). If the symmetric exchange suggests an asymmetry, then evidence may be generated that induces an alternative self-hypothesis. This could be thought of as science where agents can be thought to construct scientific spirit while exploring soul structures(*). Something similar can be said for the internal process of imagination that can be thought to construct imaginary spirit while exploring soul points.

(*) Thus, I am updating my definition of soul to both be internal and external. Still relatively penetrating in either direction.

[daylen]

Pathologies(*) of spirit and/or soul can be characterized as persistent asymmetries shown as the relationship between the gross and subtle compasses. Where subtleties can be thought of as collections of alternative hypotheses presented as counterfactuals to the gross self-assumptions.

(*) Not in the sense of requiring treatment but in the sense of being on a certain kind of path with attractors/repulsors.

[daylen]

With AQAL (I, WE, IT, ITS) being represented as the box below with implementations tying together counting procedures held steady with a knot that implicates an agent through self-reference [or lack thereof]. The box contains the computational paradigm while being suspended in the mystical paradigm. Zero or NONE having a foot in both worlds, so to speak.

[daylen]

Turns: Agent weaving of self between identities and instruments that reflects an asymmetry between the gross and subtle compasses that have the potential to magnify into pathologies of soul/spirit.
Turnings: Communal weaving between collective identification and instrumentation that is implemented in an iterative series of generational cycles that tend to be forgetful beyond a saeculum (i.e. average/median/modal lifetime of agents in communion). With generational length potentially affected by the macro spiral, medicine, women education, and so forth. Four turnings of 15-25 years generally adding up to a saeculum and four saeculums adding up to a civilization on average (with substantiation variation perhaps encapsulated by geopolitical invariation across several millenniums).

[daylen]

An agent may be painted as a spotlight looking through the AQAL chart like below. The left hand side being composed of a set of soul points corresponding to agents in a community or civilization(*), and the right hand side being a unitary soul structure shared by all agents in the corresponding community or civilization. In other words, the left is sourced by imaginations (synchronous), and the right is sourced from the scientific method (repeatable). While any agent can view all of the soul structure through their spotlight, they cannot directly view all of the soul points and thus form a singular shadow in the upper triangle and a plural shadow in the lower triangle. The centered agent line being a clear window that is constructed/discovered as a self through which the internal and external realities are revealed.

The singular/plural corresponding to top/bottom hinting at a holarchical model of soul points where the bottom half encodes group souls that act in unity with respect to the persistence of some deeper or lower level of agency/communion.

A finite soul may then suggest a mapping from soul points to soul structure that reveals reality.



(*) or potentially an infinite array of all possible agents in reality if under mystical paradigm.