Bio-poetics

Towards a Deconstructive Empiricism

These are the lecture notes from a six session seminar on the philosophical perspective that I have come to call “biopoetics”.

Session 1: Processes of Becoming

Becoming precedes being. A being becomes what it is before it is what it is.

But there is also another sense in which becoming precedes being. We are beings in a world full of other beings, and every being in this world, ourselves included, may eventually cease to be. A being’s ceasing to be, however, does not put an end to its becoming. Becoming doesn’t stop where being starts, rather, becoming proceeds alongside being, from start to finish, and becoming continues to proceed after beings cease to be. In this way, becoming not only precedes being, it also exceeds and succeeds being. Whereas a being is a momentary product, a becoming is an enduring process.

I shall define three different kinds of processes of becoming in this session: phylogenetic processes, ontogenetic processes, and heterogenetic processes. There are, no doubt, other kinds of processes and, what’s more, the three kinds of processes which I shall define in this session are only distinct from one another in theory, rather than in practice. That being said, however, theoretical distinctions can and should inform, transform, and enrich practical matters, and I invite you to judge the distinctions that follow accordingly.

Phylogenetic processes are processes of speciation, processes that group existing beings together to form species, classes, races, nations, tribes, personas and other populations with stable identities. Phylogenetic processes are processes through which species of beings come into being or, in other words, phylogenetic processes determine what kinds of beings have come into being. An example of a phylogenetic process: the process by which a number of individual life forms are grouped together to form a species, like ours, Homo sapiens, each individual life form becoming, through this process, a specimen of a species. Species do not pre-exist individuals, rather, species arise from the sampling of populations of beings. Phylogenetic processes are, thus, processes that sample populations of beings, turning individual beings into members of species of beings. Phylogenetic processes feed on ontogenetic processes—that is to say, in other words, phylogenetic processes produce species of beings by processing beings that have been produced by ontogenetic processes.

Ontogenetic processes are processes of individuation, processes whereby indeterminate potentials are actualized in determinate ways such that individual beings come into being. Ontogenetic processes determine why and how precisely an individual being comes into being. Take the process by which an individual life form develops, actualizing indeterminate potentials in a more or less determinate way. Ontogenetic processes feed on heterogenetic processes—that is to say, ontogenetic processes produce beings by processing potentials that have been produced by heterogenetic processes.

Heterogenetic processes are processes of potentiation, processes that produce indeterminate potentials. Heterogenetic processes (re-)generate the indeterminate substrate from whence beings comes into being or, in other words, heterogenetic processes are processes through which “pre-individual” potentials (i.e., potentials for ‘beings likewise’ and potentials for ‘beings otherwise’) come into being. Heterogenetic processes are auto-cannibalistic, feeding on themselves and processing the very same potentials that they produce as they produce further potentials. They are also an-archic: one cannot predict whether a heterogenetic process will produce a potential ‘to be likewise’ or a potential ‘to be otherwise’ and, what’s more, there is no way to find out whether the product of a heterogenetic process, a succeeding potential ‘to be likewise’ or ‘to be otherwise’, was produced via the processing of a preceding potential ‘to be likewise’ or a preceding potential ‘to be otherwise’.

For purposes of illustration, I will treat the three processes of becoming with respect to three different but interrelated “ecologies of existence”. First, I will treat all three processes with respect to biogeochemical ecologies ; second, with respect to behavioral ecologies ; and third, with respect to cultural ecologies.

Biological Ecologies. It is easiest to treat the three processes of becoming with respect to biological ecologies because I have employed the language of the biological to describe the three processes of becoming. Phylogenetic processes are the processes of biological selection that create different varieties of life, ontogenetic processes are the processes of biological individuation that create individual life forms, and heterogenetic processes are the geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for life. Genes, the dividual units of life, are only ever indexes and indications of genetic processes.
Ethological Ecologies. What the genetic is for biological ecologies, the memetic is for ethological ecologies. If I had employed the language of the behavioral instead of that of biological,, I would have spoken of phylo-memetic processes, onto-memetic processes, and hetero-memetic processes. Phylo-memetic processes are the processes of behavioral selection that create different varieties of behavior; onto-memetic processes are the processes of behavioral individuation that create individual behaviors; and hetero-memetic processes are the biological and geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for behavior. Memes, the dividual units of behavior, are always simulacra and simulations as well as indexes and indications of memetic processes.
Ethnological Ecologies. What the genetic is for biological ecologies, and what the memetic is for ethological ecologies, the epistemic is for ethnological ecologies. It follows that, if I were to employ the language of the cultural rather than that of biologeochemical, I would speak of phylo-epistemic processes, onto-epistemic processes, and hetero-epistemic processes. Phylo-epistemic processes are the processes of cultural selection that create different varieties of custom; onto-epistemic processes are the processes of cultural individuation create individual customs; and hetero-epistemic processes are the behavioral, biological, and geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for custom. Epistemes, the dividual units of culture, are always symbols and representations as well as indexes and indications of epistemic processes. Epistemes may also be, but need not be, simulacra and simulations of epistemic processes: those epistemes that are simulacra and simulations are “analytic-and-aesthetic epistemes” or “synthetic epistemes”; those epistemes that are not simulacra and simulations are called “analytic epistemes”.

Session 2: Flows of Beings

Heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes of becoming, in conjunction and disjunction with one another, produce and populate flows of beings.

Conjunctions of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes populate flows of beings with probable beings. If (i) heterogenetic processes create potentials ‘to be likewise’, and (ii) these potentials, ‘to be likewise’, are taken up by an ontogenetic process that individuates beings, then (iii) the ontogenetic process yields probable beings.

DIsjunctions of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes populate flows of beings with im-probable beings. If (i) heterogenetic processes create potentials ‘to be otherwise’, and (ii) these potentials, ‘to be otherwise’, are taken up by an ontogenetic process that individuates beings, then (iii) the ontogenetic process yields im-probable beings.

Conjunctions of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes populate flows of beings with regularities. If (i) ontogenetic processes produce beings that are like one another, and (ii) their likeness is taken up by a phylogenetic process, relating like with like, then (iii) the phylogenetic process transforms “beings like others” into regular specimens of a species, “regularities” for short. Regularities are, by definition, probable beings, for a conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes is a necessary condition for there to be a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes.

Disjunctions of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes populate flows of beings with aberrations. If (i) ontogenetic processes produce beings that are unlike one another, and (ii) their unlikeness is taken up by a phylogenetic process, relating like with unlike, then (iii) the phylogenetic process transforms these “beings unlike others” into aberrant specimens of a species, “aberrations” for short. All improbable individuals are aberrations, but not all probable individuals are regularities: some probable individuals are also aberrations. In other words, an aberration may be a probable being or it may be an im-probable being. Probable beings can yield aberrations, or probable aberrations, because a conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes does not automatically yield to a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes: a conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes is necessary but not sufficient for there to be a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes. A conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes only yields individual beings that have a potential to be like one another. Subsequently, a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes is a successful actualization of a potential to be alike, and a disjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes is an unsuccessful actualization of a potential to be alike.

Probable aberrations are accidental aberrations, (co-)incidentally dis-similar beings. Although they do not share the likeness that constitutes the regularities produced by a given phylogenetic process, probable aberrations may share a likenesses with one another. In other words, two probable aberrations produced by a given phylogenetic process may share a likeness with one another apart from their being unlike the regularities produced by a given phylogenetic process. A probable aberration is only ever (co-)incidentally an aberration that deviates from a norm and, concomitantly, a regularity is only ever (co-)incidentally a regularity that conforms to a norm.

Im-probable aberrations are essential aberrations, essentially dis-similar beings.No two im-probable aberrations produced by a given phylogenetic process will ever share a likeness with one another apart from their being unlike all regularities and unlike all probable aberrations. In other words, every im-probable aberration is not only unlike the regularities produced by a given phylogenetic process but also unlike any and every other aberration produced by a given phylogenetic process. An im-probable aberration is always essentially (as opposed to (co-)incidentally) an aberration that deviates from the norm and, more profoundly still, an im-probable aberration is also always essentially (as opposed to [co-]incidentally) an outlier that deviates from other deviations. Probable aberrations, by contrast, can only ever (co-)incidentally (as opposed to essentially) be outliers that deviate from other deviations.

For purposes of illustration, I will treat regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations with respect to the three “ecologies of existence” identified in the last session.

Biological Ecologies. With respect to biological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of genes, the diversity of gene pools. In this context, “genetic replication” is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities; “genetic recombination” is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yields probable aberrations; and “genetic mutation” is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.
Ethological Ecologies. With respect to ethological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of memes and the diversity of meme pools. In this context, “memetic replication” is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities; “memetic recombination” is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yields probable aberrations; and “memetic mutation” is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.
Ethnological Ecologies. With respect to ethnological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of epistemes and the diversity of episteme pools: their regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations. In this context, “epistemic replication” is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities; “epistemic recombination” is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yields probable aberrations; and “epistemic mutation” is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.

Session 3: Organizations of Beings

Organizations are “powers” that restrict flows of beings. Organizations filter out different species and specimens of beings from the flows that pass through them, and they channel these different species and specimens of beings apart from one another. Organizations are composed of “paths of least resistance”: a given organization admits and promotes a select species or specimen along a given path or channel by minimizing resistance to the select specimens/species along the given paths/channels. Organizations do not transcend the flows that they restrict. Rather, they are immanent to the flows of beings they restrict and they are created by beings that are a part of the flows of beings they restrict.

A segregating organization admits and promotes some species populating a given flow of beings and detains others and, thus, a segregating organization stratifies a given flow of beings. A segregating organization doesn’t care whether a specimen is a regularity or an aberration with respect to its species: a specimen's admission and promotion by a segregating organization is determined by the species to which the specimen belongs. For example, a segregating organization that admits and promotes human beings over other beings will admit and promote any and every human being over any and every non-human being, no matter whether the human being is a regular specimen of humanity or an aberrant specimen.

A standardizing organization detains the aberrant specimens that it finds in a given flow of beings and, thus, inhibits variability within a given flow of beings. In other words, a standardizing organization concerns itself with making the characteristics of a given flow of beings conform to a norm, admitting and promoting regularities over aberrations. A standardizing organization assesses whether or not a specimen is a regularity or an aberration and, in doing so, it admits and promotes the regularity over the aberration. For example, an organization that standardizes a flow of human beings will admit and promote those human beings whom it has assessed to be regular specimens of humanity and will detain those human beings whom it has assessed to be aberrant specimens of humanity.

A normalizing organization determines the distribution of aberrations within a given flow of beings and, thus, normalizes a measure of variability within a flow of beings. In other words, a normalizing organization concerns itself with determining the prevalence of certain characteristics within a flow of beings, admitting and promoting deviations from the norm alongside regularities as long as they do not upset the normal distribution. Normalizing organizations will admit and promote aberrations alongside regularities within limits, assessing for and detaining only the outlying aberrations, the im-probable aberrations that are essentially outliers alongside the probable aberrations that are (co-)incidentally outliers. For example, an organization that normalizes a flow of human beings will promote those aberrant specimens of humanity who do not upset the normal distribution of the flow of human beings but it will detain those aberrant humans who, as outliers, upset the normal distribution.

An optimizing organization modulates the distribution of aberrations within a given flow of beings and, thus, optimizes a measure of variability within a flow of beings. In other words, an optimizing organization concerns itself with maximizing or minimizing the prevalence of certain characteristics within a flow of beings and, to this end, an optimizing organization needn't properly determine the prevalence of certain characteristics within a flow of beings. For an optimizing organization, outliers in general mustn't be detained, instead, only those outliers that would skew a distribution in a disadvantageous manner must be detained. Those outliers that would skew a distribution in an advantageous manner are, in fact, admitted and promoted by optimizing organizations. Optimizing organizations must always detain im-probable aberrations because one cannot predict the manner in which an im-probable aberration, an essential outlier, will skew a distribution of beings. By contrast, probable aberrations skew distributions in a predictable manner and, thus, an optimizing organization will only detain those probable aberrations that are likely to skew distributions in a predictably disadvantageous manner. For example, an organization that optimizes the flow of human beings will promote those outliers that predictably skew the distribution of the flow of human beings in an advantageous manner, but it will detain those outliers that skew the distribution of the flow of human beings in a predictably disadvantageous manner and those who do so in an unpredictable manner.

For purposes of illustration, I will treat organization with respect to the three “ecologies of existence” that we have identified in previous sessions.

Biological Ecologies. With respect to biological ecologies, organizations restrict genetic diversity: segregating organizations stratify different varieties of life; standardizing organizations create conformity within and amongst varieties of life; normalizing organizations normalize measures of variability within and amongst varieties of life; optimizing organizations optimize measures of variability within and amongst varieties of life.
Ethological Ecologies. With respect to ethological ecologies, organizations restrict memetic diversity: segregating organizations stratify different varieties of behaviors; standardizing organizations create conformity within and amongst different varieties of behaviors; normalizing organizations normalize measures of variability within and amongst different varieties of behaviors; optimizing organizations optimize measures of variability within and amongst different varieties of behaviors.
Ethnological Ecologies. With respect to ethnological ecologies, organizations restrict epistemic diversity: segregating organizations stratify different varieties of customs; standardizing organizations create conformity within and amongst different varieties of customs; normalizing organizations normalize measures of variability within and amongst different varieties of customs; optimizing organizations optimize measures of variability within and amongst different varieties of customs.

Session 4: Disorganizations of Beings

Disoganizations are “counterpowers” that liberate flows of beings.

Hybridizations. If a segregating organization concerns itself with stratifying the different species populating a flow of beings, to subvert a segregating organization is to de-stratify and re-integrate the different species populating a flow of beings.

One effects hybridizations (and subverts segregation) when one defers to specimens of species other than one’s own.

Deviations. If a standardizing organization concerns itself with making a flow’s characteristics conform to a norm, to subvert a standardizing organization is to allow a flow’s characteristics to deviate from the norm.

One effects deviations (and subverts standardization) when one defers to aberrations.

Indeterminations. If a normalizing organization concerns itself with determining the probability distribution of a flow’s characteristics, to subvert a normalizing organization is to make it impossible to determine the probability distribution of a flow’s characteristics.

One effects indeterminations (and subverts normalization) when one goes beyond deferring to aberrations in general and one defers to outlying aberrations in particular.

Randomizations. If an optimizing organization concerns itself with modulating a given probability distribution so as to maximize or minimize the prevalence of certain characteristics in a flow, to subvert an optimizing organization is to randomize the prevalence of certain characteristics in a flow.

One effects randomizations (and subverts optimization) when one goes beyond deferring to outlying aberrations in general and one defers to improbable aberrations in particular.

For purposes of illustration, I will treat disorganization with respect to the three “ecologies of existence” identified in previous sessions.

Biological Ecologies. With respect to biological ecologies, disorganizations liberate genetic diversity: hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of life; deviations the standardization of varieties of life; indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of life; randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of life.
Ethological Ecologies. With respect to ethological ecologies, disorganizations liberate memetic diversity: hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of behaviors; deviations the standardization of varieties of behaviors; indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of behaviors; randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of behaviors.
Ethnological Ecologies. With respect to ethnological ecologies, disorganizations liberate epistemic diversity:hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of customs; deviations the standardization of varieties of customs; indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of customs; randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of customs.

Session 5: Biopoetic and Necropolitics

A biopoetic organization is a life-creating organization. A biopoetic organization only exists to create living conditions for beings: it willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to dis-organization when it ceases to create living conditions for beings. For example, a biopoetic organization that creates food for human beings may detain a given animal and plant species for as long as doing so creates food for human beings, yes, but such a biopoetic organization willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to dis-organization if and when human beings are able to obtain food otherwise, without having to detain a given animal or plant species. More profoundly still, such an organization willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to dis-organization by continually breaking down, falling into disrepair, so as to either be abandoned if no longer needed or repaired if needed.

A necropolitical organization is a death-dealing organization. A necropolitical organization is gracelessly resolved against dis-organization, whether or not it creates living conditions for beings. For example, a necropolitical organization that once created food for human beings will detain a given animal or plant species even after it is no longer required to do so in order to create food for human beings. Indeed, such an organization will gracelessly resolve itself against disorganization whether or not human beings are able to obtain food without its assistance and, more profoundly still, such an organization will gracelessy resolve itself against dis-organization by working to prevent human beings from obtaining food without it, so that human beings must continue to maintain it. Indeed, such an organization is necropolitical because it would monopolize the provisioning of food for humans in order to assure its continued maintenance.

For purposes of illustration, I will treat biopoetic and necropolitical organizations with respect to the three “ecologies of existence” identified in the previous sessions.

Biological Ecologies. With respect to biological ecologies, the necropolitical organization is the full domestication of one variety of life by another that is gracelessly resolved against feralization and rewilding. The biopoetic organization, by contrast, is the partial domestication of one variety of life by another that willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to feralization and rewilding. Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in genetic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in genetic diversity.
Ethological Ecologies. With respect to ethological ecologies, the necropolitical organization is the full repression of one variety of behavior by another that is gracelessly resolved against the return of the repressed. The biopoetic organization, by contrast, is the partial repression of one variety of behavior by another that willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to the return of the repressed. Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in memetic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in memetic diversity.
Ethnological Ecologies. With respect to ethnological ecologies, the necropolitical organization is the full colonization of one variety of custom by another that is gracelessly resolved against decolonization and indigenization. The biopoetic organization, by contrast, is the partial colonization of one variety of custom by another that willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to decolonization and indigenization. Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in epistemic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in epistemic diversity.

Session 6.1: Constructs

(Or, Beings Formed)

Constructs organize beings according to their forms, according to their configurations: e.g., being a spherical particle or being a sawtooth wave.

A heterogeny of forms distributes one set of intervals along another set of intervals, constituting a space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable).

An ontogeny of forms coordinates the constituents of a space. Or, in other words, an ontogeny of forms determines whether or not a space is measurable.

An ontogeny of forms yields probable forms when it determines that a space is measurable.
An ontogeny of forms yields im-probable forms when it determines that a space is immeasurable.

A phylogeny of forms relates two or more different spaces to one another on the basis of (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies, i.e., (dis-)similarities in manner in which the different spaces have been coordinated.

Particles (i.e., Body Parts or Organs) are forms that arise when a phylogeny of forms only includes regularities and includes no aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that particles arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different spaces that have only been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar ways.
Waves (i.e., Flows) are forms that arise when a phylogeny of forms includes regularities and probable aberrations but includes no improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that waves arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dis-similar ways but not in essentially dis-similar ways.
Fields (i.e., Bodies without Parts/Organs) are forms that arise when a phylogeny of forms includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that fields arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar, (co-)incidentally dis-similar, and essentially dis-similar ways.

A construct is an organization that admits beings according to their forms.

A standardizing construct can only admit beings formed of particles.
A normalizing construct and an optimizing construct can admit beings formed of waves alongside beings formed of particles.
A segregating construct can admit beings formed of fields alongside beings formed of particles and waves, provided that the beings formed of fields are “well behaved” and not too noisy.
A constructive failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings formed of fields that have been denied for being noisy make so much noise that they compromise the constructs that deny them.
Biopoetic constructs are gracefully dissolved by constructive failures.
Necropolitical systems are gracelessly resolved against constructive failures.

Session 6.2: Mechanisms

(Or, Beings Transformed)

Mechanisms organize beings according to their transformations, according to changes in their form: e.g., being rotated, stretched, or twisted.

A heterogeny of transformations distributes a set of transformations along a set of intervals, constituting a space-time with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable).

An ontogeny of transformations coordinates the constituents of a space-time. Or, in other words, an ontogeny of transformations determines whether or not a space-time is measurable.

An ontogeny of transformations yields probable transformations when it determines that a space-time is measurable.
An ontogeny of transformations yields im-probable transformations when it determines that a space-time is immeasurable.

A phylogeny of transformations relates two or more different space-times to one another on the basis of (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies, i.e., (dis-)similarities in the manner in which the different space-times have been coordinated.

Displacements are transformations that arise when a phylogeny of transformations only includes regularities and includes no aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that displacements arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different space-times that have only been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar ways.
Deformations are transformations that arise when a phylogeny of transformations includes regularities and probable aberrations but includes no improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that deformations arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different space-times that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dis-similar ways but not in essentially dis-similar ways.
Fluctuations are transformations that arise when a phylogeny of transformations includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, fluctuations arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different space-times that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar, (co-)incidentally dis-similar, and essentially dis-similar ways.

A mechanism is an organization that admits beings according to their transformations.

A standardizing mechanism can only admit beings undergoing displacements.
A normalizing mechanism and an optimizing mechanism can admit beings undergoing deformations alongside beings undergoing displacements.
A segregating mechanism can admit beings undergoing fluctuations alongside beings undergoing deformations and displacements, provided that beings undergoing fluctuations are “well behaved” and not too noisy.
A mechanical failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings that have been denied because of their noisy fluctuations make so much noise that they compromise the mechanisms that deny them.
Biopoetic mechanisms are gracefully dissolved by mechanical failures.
Necropolitical mechanisms are gracelessly resolved against mechanical failures.

Session 6.3: Systems

(Or, Beings Informed)

Systems organize beings according to their states, according to the dynamic variables that qualify changes in their forms: e.g., having more or less momentum or having more or less energy.

A heterogeny of states distributes a set of states along a set of transformations, constituting a state space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable).

An ontogeny of states coordinates the constituents of a state space. Or in other words, an ontogeny of states determines whether or not a state space is measurable.

An ontogeny of states yields probable states when it determines that a state space is measurable.
An ontogeny of states yields im-probable states when it determines that a state space is immeasurable.

A phylogeny of states relates two or more different state spaces to one another on the basis of (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies, i.e., (dis-)similarities in the manner in which the different state spaces have been coordinated.

Stable states arise when a phylogeny of states only includes regularities and includes no aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that stability arises when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different state spaces that have only been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar ways.
Meta-stable states arise when a phylogeny of states includes regularities and probable aberrations but includes no improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that meta-stability arises when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different state spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dis-similar ways but not in essentially dis-similar ways.
Critical states or when a phylogeny of states includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that criticality arises when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different state spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar, (co-)incidentally dis-similar, and essentially dis-similar ways.

A system is an organization that admits beings according to their states.

A standardizing system can only admit beings that are stable..
A normalizing system and an optimizing system can admit beings that are meta-stable alongside beings that are stable.
A segregating system can admit beings that are in crisis alongside beings that are meta-stable and stable, provided that beings in crisis are “well behaved” and not too noisy.
A systemic failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings that have been denied because of their noisy crises make so much noise that they compromise the systems that deny them.
Biopoetic systems are gracefully dissolved by systemic failures.
Necropolitical systems are gracelessly resolved against systemic failures.

Session 6.4: Complexes

(Or, Beings Interpreted)

Complexes organize beings according to their actions, according to the ways that their dynamic variables affect one another: e.g., the way in which a being's momentum affects and is affected by its energy.

A heterogeny of actions distributes one set of states along another set of states, constituting a function space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable).

An ontogeny of actions coordinates the constituents of a function space. Or, in other words, an ontogeny of actions determines whether or not a function space is measurable.

An ontogeny of actions yields probable actions when it determines that a function space is measurable.
An ontogeny of actions yields im-probable actions when it determines that a function space is immeasurable.

A phylogeny of actions relates two or more different function spaces to one another on the basis of (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies, i.e., (dis-)similarities in the manner in which the different function spaces have been coordinated.

Re-actions (i.e., functions) arise when a phylogeny of actions only includes regularities and includes no aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that re-actions arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different function spaces that have only been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar ways.
- A variable that is determined by another variable is a re-active variable. A re-active variable is dependent on another active variable: e.g., one’s energy being determined by one’s momentum or, vice versa, one’s momentum being determined by one's energy.
Inter-actions (i.e., operators) arise when a phylogeny of actions includes regularities and probable aberrations but includes no improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, that inter-actions arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different function spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dis-similar ways but not in essentially dis-similar ways.
- Two variables that mutually determine one another are inter-active variables. Two variables that inter-act with one another are co-dependent: e.g., a feedback loop in which one’s momentum determines one’s energy and one’s energy determines one’s momentum in turn, one after the other, over and over again.
Intra-actions (i.e., spectra of operators) arise when a phylogeny of actions includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations. That is to say, in other words, intra-actions arise when a phylogenetic process relates two or more different function spaces that have been coordinated in (co-)incidentally similar, (co-)incidentally dis-similar, and essentially dis-similar ways.
- Two variables that cannot be determined simultaneously are intra-active variables. Two variables that intra-act with one another are complementary, when one variable is determined the other variable becomes indeterminate: e.g., the more precisely one’s momentum is determined the less precisely one’s energy is determined and, vice versa, the more precisely one’s energy is determined the less precisely one’s momentum is determined

A complex is an organization that admits beings according to their actions.

A standardizing complex can only admit beings that are re-active.
A normalizing complex and an optimizing complex can admit beings that are inter-active alongside beings that are re-active.
A segregating complex can admit beings that are intra-active alongside beings that are inter-active and re-active, provided that intra-active beings are “well behaved” and not too noisy.
A complex failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings that have been denied because of their noisy intra-activity make so much noise that they compromise the complexes that deny them.
Biopoetic complexes are gracefully dissolved by complex failures.
Necropolitical complexes are gracelessly resolved against complex failures.