also wondering what data sets we can use to test this method, and what Goethean results may emerge, I am still vitally interested in any direct phenomenological correlations for these abstract insights (I may take this into meditation with me) thanks for the food for thought Bonnitta.
I enjoy this video very much and I have some very naive gut reactions that I share expecting that I have missed something rather obvious. These are notes I guess to another project that may be evolving that is beyond the scope of our current models. Forgive my sloppiness. I think we may be moving towards an Evolutionary Semantics.
Bonnie’s effort to clarify categories in a Post dialectical way is fascinating. I am interested in the model as much as I am in the creative thinking that produced the model. It is abstract and conceptual and I wonder as Glistening does in how we can apply this model and develop a phenomenology to go along with it. This is of great interest to me and many questions arise. I don’t have a very good language for this yet.
I have questions about evolution and development. The species evolves, the individual develops but the species only evolves through the development of the individuals. Conceptual models and phenomenological investigations may be tracking different aspects of Nature. For example, Bonnie points out the individual elements she refers to do not exist. They are not found in actual organisms. It is the arrangement of the relations within the cluster of elements that actually show up in actual organisms. The green curved line traces the appearance of the connections between the clusters of elements with other clusters of elements. So far so good. I get this. This makes sense. But how do we translate the quantifiable of the diagram into the qualia that we live with? This is I believe the next big challenge.
When these distinctions appear in the phenomenological realm what kind of appearances are they? How are the individual elements which don’t appear directly in an organism communicated to the cluster of elements that do appear? Through what medium of exchange do they become? Does the green line which represents a Meta pattern (archetype) have causal efficacy? Or is to be understood as metaphorical? A narrative?
If the elements that make up the Meta patterns don’t exist except in relationship to other elements how is the ensemble held together? If it is real or semi real or demi real then how does it maintain qualities or characteristics as it unfolds through time through an actual agentic motile creature?
It seems to me that the ensemble is held together through intentionality of individuals who are immanent and real and in the moment. And that is the level (?) that I am working at through the practice of Symbolic Modeling. Modeling in the moment, making choices based on minimal cues are important to survival and each of us is dealing with a semi structured reality that works okay until we are confronted with the novelty that disrupts, forces us to reorganize the semi- structured dynamic into another structure that works well enough until another perturbation upsets the apple cart once again. So modeling is our human way of making sense of a world that is not static or standing still. They can be highly abstract or in the moment. Both are needed. There is I believe right now a big gap in the conceptual and the abstract and quantifiable and the kind of modeling project I am engaged in which is more perceptual, qualitative, phenomenological. I am asking the perceiver directly about her relationship to her perceptual space I am less interested in her conceptual space both are necessery for a Goethean Science to arrive.
A big leap. I am convinced that the fourth dimension isn’t an aspect of Time as Einstein and others have suggested but rather the capacity of the embodied agent to know the difference between what is inside and what is outside. I am less interested in the Archetype as I am the actual in the moment configuration of meaning making happening in the moment through which an archetype may or may not get expressed. Hence my interest in the novel and the unique rather than the Archetype that repeats itself.
I enjoy this video very much and I have some very naive gut reactions that I share expecting that I have missed something rather obvious. These are notes I guess to another project that may be evolving that is beyond the scope of our current models. Forgive my sloppiness. I think we may be moving towards an Evolutionary Semantics.
Bonnie’s effort to clarify categories in a Post dialectical way is fascinating. I am interested in the model as much as I am in the creative thinking that produced the model. It is abstract and conceptual and I wonder as Glistening does in how we can apply this model and develop a phenomenology to go along with it. This is of great interest to me and many questions arise. I don’t have a very good language for this yet.
I have questions about evolution and development. The species evolves, the individual develops but the species only evolves through the development of the individuals. Conceptual models and phenomenological investigations may be tracking different aspects of Nature. For example, Bonnie points out the individual elements she refers to do not exist. They are not found in actual organisms. It is the arrangement of the relations within the cluster of elements that actually show up in actual organisms. The green curved line traces the appearance of the connections between the clusters of elements with other clusters of elements. So far so good. I get this. This makes sense. But how do we translate the quantifiable of the diagram into the qualia that we live with? This is I believe the next big challenge.
When these distinctions appear in the phenomenological realm what kind of appearances are they? How are the individual elements which don’t appear directly in an organism communicated to the cluster of elements that do appear? Through what medium of exchange do they become? Does the green line which represents a Meta pattern (archetype) have causal efficacy? Or is to be understood as metaphorical? A narrative?
If the elements that make up the Meta patterns don’t exist except in relationship to other elements how is the ensemble held together? If it is real or semi real or demi real then how does it maintain qualities or characteristics as it unfolds through time through an actual agentic motile creature?
It seems to me that the ensemble is held together through intentionality of individuals who are immanent and real and in the moment. And that is the level (?) that I am working at through the practice of Symbolic Modeling. Modeling in the moment, making choices based on minimal cues are important to survival and each of us is dealing with a semi structured reality that works okay until we are confronted with the novelty that disrupts, forces us to reorganize the semi- structured dynamic into another structure that works well enough until another perturbation upsets the apple cart once again. So modeling is our human way of making sense of a world that is not static or standing still. They can be highly abstract or in the moment. Both are needed. There is I believe right now a big gap in the conceptual and the abstract and quantifiable and the kind of modeling project I am engaged in which is more perceptual, qualitative, phenomenological. I am asking the perceiver directly about her relationship to her perceptual space I am less interested in her conceptual space both are necessery for a Goethean Science to arrive.
A big leap. I am convinced that the fourth dimension isn’t an aspect of Time as Einstein and others have suggested but rather the capacity of the embodied agent to know the difference between what is inside and what is outside. I am less interested in the Archetype as I am the actual in the moment configuration of meaning making happening in the moment through which an archetype may or may not get expressed. Hence my interest in the novel and the unique rather than the Archetype that repeats itself.