... as a domain-driven designer, not hypermediating your API's response hypertext?
Let me try to persuade you that DDDD and HATEOAS (IDEALS) overlap in layered separation of concerns as much as complement each other where the other leaves us uncertain.
link
[rel]="...t̨͕͇̖́̅̂̿o͓̮̾͘w͉̱̗̾̽̃͜͠e͇̅̾͟r̡͙̭͇͂̽̍̿͆͢ ͍̹̉̐ỡ̳͚f ͎̥̈́͠bâ̬̪͙͍̋͑͒̚͢b̦̥̪͗̔͞el̖͔̞͖̇͐̕͞..."
[href]="http://example.com"
The beautiful point about the tower of babel is not that there is no ultimate language, but that we could conceive language ontologically to move and come into form just as would buildings, animals and gods.
What's half a tower of babel? A living tower.
How to represent a living architecture where models play (separation of concerns is key):
- (Ontological) Format (hyperschema JSON, etc; it's hypermediated sometimes)
- (Structural) Protocol (segmented discourse representation theory)
- (Phenomenological) Domain (distributed domain driven design; and yeah,
you're under a "subdomain" sometimes) - (Teleological) Workflow (hypermedia as the engine of application state;
FORMs and LINKs compose metacomputational PROCEDUREs; Fazi)
What is representation (re-presentation)? Since it seems from "politics" to "technology" everybody's got it wrong (or else they would've implemented REST: coincidence?):
A presentation might be a state of affairs or a mereological complex: ontologically homogeneous names (strings), categorically heterogeneous (actions and properties), it's in the world, has a truthbearer, a sentence-subject, etc. At one time, we called these "propositions" (bound to a sentential function with truth-functional semantics). Well, that's a mouthful.
I can re-present a state of affairs simply, with two properties, a name and a "role":
{
"name": "Smith",
"actingAs": "Candidate"
}
Purposively I've created this model of a state of affairs in virtue of using implicit meta-language, the names of properties. Indeed, READ is an abstraction; nothing really stops me from using language, to engage in languaging, here at the property level. I can say "name", "firstName", "first.name", "name/first", and so on, for any number of possible syntactical variations that makes sense to humans, perhaps until we get to properties that start to look like hashes ("9f86d08..."). These are hardly even machine-readable without much computational work (stepping), which is to say that the space between any two possible positions is vast when thinking of "reading" (an abstraction, mind you) a hash versus something written in variable language. "9" and "f", whatever reading this string would resolve to, whatever it means, involves conceivably more work than, say, in the sentence "the cat is blue" (C), between the letters "t" and "h", at least from the perspective of a human, the distinction we're attempting to make here. More important, is that the sentence, C, reliably matches a pattern faster given a regular language with common forms, than strictly random character soup. As the systematic task builds contextual units, the similarity between our given statement and the set of established ones converges to given us a sub-structural moment at which comparison at a sub-sentential level can take place, in which in-between and other lexical positional momenta and spatial norms are determined.
We might say the above "presentation" says, given sufficient context (and what doesn't happen in a domain context?): The man who is applying for the job...
Naming and description seem to be irreducible acts: just as objectification and classification, prescription and description, and so on. Many "distinctions" at once seem necessary as much in their contexts as they seem linked to other necessities in other contexts. How is 'naming' more or less identical than 'objectification', as Ludwig Wittgenstein might ask?
How is 'classification' more or less identical than 'description'? Indeed, nothing in the act of naming determines syntactic categories, nor do syntactic categories, if realized, guarantee that the lexical item not be used as a name, from a pragmatic perspective. Linguistics (quantity; didactic), semantics (quality; amorous), semiotics (relevance; inaesthetics), pragmatics (manner; aisthetics) all meet to condition the horizon of possibility of autonomy (material unconscious), functionality (machinic unconscious), intentionality (subjective unconscious) and ... (territorial unconscious); the four aspects of System Level Design, then, can be re-cast in Deleuze's simple philosophical materials.
The main point to make here is that we are already developing the interface
in the very naming ("hard problem") at the property level. We are interfacing.
So imagine the same payload but it is a PUT request: for whatever reason, they
can update either of these properties, but in virtue of how they were arranged
to the structure of presentational immediacy given of the client. The obvious
point is that we often determine the naming pattern of [class]es
or [id]s based on these properties at the outset: we are
developing the interface at the initial baptism of a property-level name.
We might think property level description is enough to say we have "re-presented" a state of affairs, but one is really as complex as we want to make it. From what does representation begin? This is what REST is about: how is representation possible? What is its structure? Or conditions for its possibility? The point of REST is that a resource is minimally self-navigable, it is systematic and functional (CRUD and CRUD navigation). It has a graph that shows all possible actions for the representation, its inner world-thought.
Indeed, the "next" relation re-presents an action to be taken, logically, but its presentation is up to the client. Any relation is up to interpretation logically prior its functional and structural features, its autonomy and intentionality is constrained to functional and structural possibility. It's different kind of UI dev. But relation can be mapped to a FORM, moreover N relations can be mapped to (non-)metacomputational PROCEDURE as FORM to start partial or midway computations at a trigger relational name, discoverable and reason-able in relational syntactic features.
If, e.g., a model using reasonable resources gets the job done with fancy association, then this counts against the view that cognition requires classical architecture.
Cognition without Classical Architecture. Garson, James
Links in the response suggest hypermedia orientation: but to what end? Primarily to transition safely, idempotently, mutably, transclusively from context to context, giving the client (just a "requester") all that it needs to proceed. But this framing of the task is not (just) intentionally vague: medium specificty is itself part of the solution to the problem, to create a problem space in which agreement on solution, as much as iterative PROCEDURE is possible, with all the contextual logic following with it; our work to be done.
So FORMs become simple or abstract (multiple sequential or parallel; i.e., mereologically complex, in the world, categorically heterogeneous, ontologically homogeneous, etc.) assemblages referred to by us in mentioning names both dynamic or generated or static in link relation (response API payload).
HAM (hypertext abstract machines) was first proposed about a decade about, and CREST (computational REST) wasn't far behind, each outlining the precipice before us: the ingression of metacomputational PROCEDURE.
Remember JSX (a cursed abomination from Facebook that exceedingly privileges DX over FX: frontend experience; why restrict ourselves to only humans or "people" as those engaging our tools?)? Well, aside from it being insufferable for CTags users, let's consider an example library that would make trivial the mapping of "syntactic" (lexical; i.e. grammatical) structure (categories?) to our (in)famous URL space:
<link rel={vm.lexicalStructure}
href={API.affordance.www.example.com({ urlConfig })} />
Our first design assumption is that any given expression of a link relation, or thereby containing at least one, (i.e., relating relation; see Arianna Betti's Against Facts) may bear truth (or be a truthbearer) under some hypertext referential space. As it is said, "Beauty is the givenness of data" (Contingent Computation. Beatrice M. Fazi.)
Getting to the point, there's magic in them hills: metanorms are expressible through unactualized actions in link relation as tendencies and capacities which really exist in the possibility space of action of the semiotic web (the gradient of semioticity).
A quickie. Imagine this link relation: ... rel="A→◻◊A" ...
Now... replace the Propositional Variables with hashes over which we can guarantee uniqueness (controllable reduction of collisions).
Abstract Link Relations (or, elsewhere said: "non-standard link relations" hypothesized to bear truth, if not the sentence-subject, from immanent algebraic and algorithmic structure of strings of link relation; think medium specificity a la Fazi). Other examples?
- XDIMessages
- Any terminal commands
- YUML
- ASCII
- Modal FOL (S5, S4, doxastic logics, epistemic logics, temporal logics, etc.)
- Sheet music (and degradations: guitar tabs, etc.)
- CoRALcoral
- SDRSes, DeLandan simulational languages, etc.
These languages can be interpretted in a non-denumerable many ways. So the context-freeness has to be given anywhere markup potentially tends away from the event of its decision bound to interactive exteriority conditioning the possibility for its emergence.
Non-standard Link Relation concerns how we transindividuate affordances through metasymbolic expression of interiority/exteriority, universality/particiularity, relata-specificty insofar as we define pre-configuration, pre-organizational structure immanent to mechanism and mechanism-independent structure, properties, tendency and capacity in metacomputational and non-metacomputational procedure.
Programmable possibility spaces much? Programmable semioticity? Programmable solidarity? Productivity? Compositionality? Systematicity? etc.
There is of course a "cache" that resides in various intermediaries: we may systematically analyze these strings using "context units" (in much the same way the "Context Object" improved on the Event Loop Design Patternco).
Context units store the activation values of all the hidden units at a given time *t* and make these values available as inputs at the subsequence cycle *t* + 1. Since information about the hidden units at *t* is available as an input at *t* + 1, and since these values, in turn affect the values of the hidden units at *t* +2, the context units provide the net with the ability to encode a memory of a whole sequence of inputs.
Cognition without Classical Architecture. Garson, James.[cog]
How to code for dealing with mistakes ("apologies") in interpretations that the net gives?
When the background process detects an inconsistency in the results produced by the foreground system (e.g., because a “guess” turns out to be mistaken), it can then take corrective action by generating an “apology.”
"Consistency Analysis in Bloom: a CALM and Collected Approach" [calm]
The Discovery Layer starts at HTTP OPTIONSrfc2616: finding
systematic tasks (again, even though the hypermedia web is a "cognitive-like"
possibility space, we do not necessarily have to only take J. Fodor's model of
cognition: instead of methods, we discover "systematic tasks" for integration
into our neat little Risk Traits model, which should cover a range of mental
models of identitymmi):
- Spacetime (Structural; Distribution)
- Attribute (Ontological; Aisthetic; Discussion)
- Relationship (Political; Teleological; Debate)
- Presentation (Phenomenological; Amorous; Description)
- Capability (Patalogical; Deconstruction)
While political (or teleological; "debate" in Philonomics) identity exists, so do structural (or spacetime) identity, ontological (or aisthetic (Contingent Computation, Fazi); attribute) identity and phenomenological (or amorotic) identity; and patalogical (deconstruction) identity. How do we map these between themselves and in Philonomics? Consider the Personal to Material as the analogue to the Humility-Honesty axis in HEXACO. mmi presents a case for interdependence, intercompleteness, etc. of the proposed mental modals.
The net was then tested for its ability to detect this grammatical structure with strings that were not in the training set. The net correctly predicted what the legal continuations of novel input strings would be in agreement with the grammar.
Cognition without Classical Architecture. Garson, James.[cog]
These "strings" we are concerned with, as "values" of the [rel],
I have called "non-standard link relations": as a harmonization of François
Laruelle's "Non-standard Philosophy" and Alfred Jarry's 'Pataphysics. A
scientific formulization of Clinamen, Anomalous, Absolute, Antinomy, Pataphor
and Syzygy in terms of mechanism and mechanism-structure which may be realized
with in the semiotic space of possibility of action.
What a deliciously gnarly question:
"Isn’t there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasoners in a FOL form?"syllogism
But... "However, ◊◻A→A says that if A is possibly necessary, then A is the case, and this is far from obvious. Why does (B) seem obvious, while one of the things it entails seems not obvious at all? The answer is that there is a dangerous ambiguity in the English interpretation of A→◻◊A."
We need to adapt this question to account for the understanding that the English, as much as any other language, involves ambiguity: we cannot just throw FOL into the web space; to adjust:
Isn't there a need for cacheing the results of the various reasons in First-order modal Logic (as well as Free Logic, Intuitionistic and other non-classical logics which might include "domain functions," etc. such that assignments are made to each possible world its own domain)?
Indeed, the web may never be unified according to facts: there is no ultimate language (François Laruelle). At most, we have correlational matrices from which to model domains in the web's possibility space of action.
Recall some of the Hard Problem(s) of Computer Science:
1. Naming things
2. Cache invalidation
7. Async programming
3. Off-by-one errors
Such a question checks every problem, and then some!
Isn't ANSI C interpreted, anyway? But truly, we have serious objectives:
- "The Need for Speed, 23 Years Later"ns "Delays of just 1 second are enough to interrupt a person’s conscious thought process"
- Shouldn't the cached results of reasons be navigable, transclusive, safe, (im)mutable and still idempotent?
- Potentiation: link relations provide the conditions for the possibility of
superpositional acquaintance with data. - Interplanetary REST: some form of Creative Intelligence must be demonstrated before interplanetary communicational texture is realized, as web navigability, tranclusion, (im)mutability, safety and idempotence afford for us a manifold corpus, if not a metaphysics of literature, from which to deploy analysis: a shift from "representation"; and so too, from "understanding" to recognition, from "composition" to (mereological) complexity, from "inference" to causality).
Our goal is to exploit the conditions for the possibility of attention (filter, neurological, spotlight, premotor) as a metaphorical construct, as much as metonymical, synechdocical and ironic constructs are realized from the nature of the inherent metaphorical nature of attention: as a spotlight, under certain mechanism-dependent structure, and as a "vision," under the circumstances or simulations of mechanism-independent structureattn.
minimal tropological evidence of causality; I do not have a theory, but perhaps I can convince, as Yuji Ijiri does in accounting practice, that link relations are causal relations in semantic web (development). This must be a technological achievement before systematic space exploration is possible, inasmuch as hypermedia safety, hypermedia idempotence, hypermedia mutability and hypermedia navigability would be necessary and sufficient conditions for describing the modes of causality: first, formal, efficient and final cause, as well as Peirce's Fourthness: first, second, third and fourth, as completion, conclusion, emergence, deduction.
We aspire to develop computational completition, conclusion, emergence and deduction from hypermedia as the engine of application state.
Think of every <...> as a mode. It can follow from any number of attributes; in our case, we want to formally express a connection between meta-relation and web. Meta-data is fine: meta-relations take departure from the scaffold of meta-data. They have extra-linguistic significance: but what world do they pick out? At least a blockchain makes that significance a conveyor-tube we can perform global consensus on!
Do you really want systems built for global consensus to be applied to interplanetary communication? Hardly!
Blockchains are not scale-free because they do not begin from hypermedia-orientation.
Look at a transaction's JSON: do you see any links? No. Addresses, Hashes... Big deal!
It's got "nested" structure, and even "values": but we need relata-specificity (link relation as relating relation inasmuch as we consider perceptual relations as causal relations).
(Web namespace) https://example.com
(see https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Semantic_Web_terminology#namespace)
https://example.com/{urland}
(Security namespace) https://example.com/auth
https://example.com/token
https://example.com/refresh
etc.
(API namespace) https://example.com/api
(Relational namespace) https://example.com/api/rels/{entity}
e.g., https://example.com/api/rels/street
https://example.com/relation/{named-relation}
e.g., [rel]="start https://example.com/relation/inside" [href]="https://example.com/"
(see https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc8288.html; i.e., *predictive relating relation*)
(REST commandspace) https://example.com/api/{entities}/:id
e.g., https://example.com/api/shoes/68a3641a066b1f2d4d2a3328d5b5594020b14ed06096f5b3474ed7893091043a
https://example.com/api/{entities}/:id/{value-objects}
e.g., https://example.com/api/houses/68a3641a066b1f2d4d2a3328d5b5594020b14ed06096f5b3474ed7893091043a/doors
(Action commandspace) https://example.com/api/{entities}/:id/{NamedAction}
e.g., https://example.com/api/entities/68a3641a066b1f2d4d2a3328d5b5594020b14ed06096f5b3474ed7893091043a/TradeAction
(ODRL commandspace) https://example.com/api/{entities}\::id
e.g., https://example.com/api/wines:68a3641a066b1f2d4d2a3328d5b5594020b14ed06096f5b3474ed7893091043a
https://example.com/api/{entities}/:id\::{NamedAction}
e.g., https://example.com/api/cars/68a3641a066b1f2d4d2a3328d5b5594020b14ed06096f5b3474ed7893091043a:DriveAction
For ODRL, Linked Data Proofsld-proof validation logic use CASL with Seneca, etc. For the GUID, has the object that is being posted or use REST extended with a queue mechanism for de-duping and use the sequence ID as the input for the hash, place in a DHT for processing by the peer network depending on the type of resource that it presupposes: mining, agriculture, manufacturing and construction resources will require a certain number of nodes to generating a sufficient number of confirmations to determine its ontological integrity in order to counter fragmentation. How do we deal with change ossification in networked resource substrates (whatever is subtending the afforded capabilities across the commandspace)?
The web is about LINKS! A network's becoming scale-free consists in links being the building blocks, or building constituency, of its reality. Its boundary is necessarily fuzzy, its borders could be playing Hackenbush or Nomic, or Nomic Hackenbush! Who knows! The properties of free-scale are coded safety, idempotence, mutability and navigability.
But this substrate emerges from the robustness of interactive exteriority.
How can we teach the web to play with itself? To jack off? Even when we're not looking?
All that blather about "money" being "durable," "globally transferrable," "fungible," "divisible," "store of value"... rubbish!
Money is a nonhuman living hyperobject that preexisted market economy: it must be safe, idempotent, mutable and transclusive.
- Thinking money involves transclusion: insight into the future, what will be bought, how it might feel.
- Thinking money involves mutability: it can evolve or not depending on context.
- Thinking money involves idempotency: money is use in ecology.
- Thinking money involves safety: we imagine the limits of its effects, and
our functional ultimacy.
An opportunity before us: a web is not (just) beautiful.
It is horrorific to imagine Creative Intelligence. What is intelligence but a sum of a lot of parts organized into a historico-logical structure that breeds consciousness before me? It is between a self that one expresses one's intelligence.
Yet if those parts, constituents, could escape from a subscending w/hole and non-mechanically (non-standard mechanically) bring about effects in others by inducing changes within their upper ontology's given motility of actual occasion?
Is intelligence in content or in form? How can we make sense of "intelligible contingency" such that modal force (having a property) is logically prior to temporality (holding a property) in API affordance? Let's keep it hybrid:
- forms-from-facts
- forms-from-mereological-complexes
- forms-from-content
- forms-from-content-in-structure
- forms-from-content-in-structural-link-relation
- code-from-content-in-structural-link-relation
- everything-is-already-coded-from-content-in-structural-link-relation
What stops us from writing
rel="<form>...</form>"
Well the parser, but now we can predict forms within the syntactic space and
perform computation at the local context without requesting the specified
[href], assuming that the client implements, say, a P2Pweb
portal. Or even embeddeding HTML is a non-hypermedia-type:
{{beginning_header_of_file}}
<html>...</html>
{{ending_header_of_file}}
{{rest_of_file}}
Or in SVG, we can embed DOM behaviors within a <foreignObject>
such that the content negotiation pre-figuration can allow for rendering SVG
with capabilities locally from the file system or simply render a web page if
opened through HTTP: normalization and uniformity of the URL allows for these
capabilities to be expressible in a non-dual way (unilaterally dualyzed functions).
We already understand the concept of "action" at the protocol level. We want "
action" to live along side the intertextual plane of consistency of the
hypertext. Before moving on, a user agent may analyze the given document for
clues as to what to do next. At every link relation is a "stored action" (or
"potential action") ready to fire. Why should the user agent choose it over
some other by a sequential order? In the manner of HTML's norms, whatever
[rel] chosen conforms to a pre-established harmony, if you will, that says
"prefetch" fires before "stylesheet," etc.
However, we want the opportunity to distribute and decentralize the expression of relata-specificity and leave "meaning" to whomever runs the repsonse to the request (expression): it could be one head, or a massively coordinated soup of stars and spokes, everywhere between a completing, concluding, deducing or emerging compute.
Or, we might say: let's make meaning programmable! Programmable semantics?! Programmable semantic web!!
Link relations can get messy, but let's start simple:
- "next" (standard)
- "next-next" (maybe non-standard?)
- "up and previous"
- "between/door"
"next" is pretty straight-forward: assuming your API already has business logic and sufficient context. Okay, maybe it isn't so straight-forward, but most typically, the bare minimum is that in the response, "next" should do something reasonable, and in an excellent world: it would do so atomically, consistently, in isolation and durably. At a grocery store, "next" could mean something different for the item, the customer, the isle, and so on, for every thing that can be given in affordance. Elsewhere, at a baseball field, "next" could mean the player to bat, or next inning, or "take/move to/etc" the next base.
Those previous examples could all be called "mereological simplexes": they arguably require no grammatical (or lexical) analysis, but do require syntactic analysis. The presumption of grammar between a character is exactly what we do not wish to assume. Its existence must be determined through causal discovery. Link relations as such can possess internal relation: a link relation can be about the parent document, or it can be about itself, or really anything (assuming the identifier within the string to be analyzed in the link relation can be treated systematically)
Is your experience of the color blue the same as mine? Well, starting from somewhere, some API can give us the answer, assuming we are willing to mediate our experience through computation's own experience. Recall: the response doesn't have to give us anything. It could 500 error out. Or your input might be corrupted in transit, by bitflipping, and you might told "no." Or, given your preference settings, however derived, the "page" (window) to the actual occasion of our asking will have an answer pre-formed for us.
Hypermedia: for REST services, hypermedia helps frontends to be more independent of service endpoints. (my emphasis)
Oftentimes hypermedia-orientation is mentioned but not emphasized. What is the most important, operative term here?
What does independence fundamentally mean?
Let's take a detour, Philosophy and Simulation (Manuel DeLanda):
Yet despite these differences a convection cell and a chemical clock, as these reactions are called, are qualitatively the same. This implies that a full explanation of these emergent entities must possess a component that is independent of any particular mechanism.
Philosophy and Simulation[philandsim]
Adding to the explanation of emergence a mechanism-independent component will involve introducing entirely new ideas so it will be useful at this point to justify the need for the extra complexity. So far the concept of emergence has played an ontological role, showing why it is legitimate to believe in the existence of objective properties, tendencies, and capacities. But once we add the mechanism-independent component the concept of emergence leads to two important epistemological consequences: it explains why we can use partial models to learn about reality and it provides an account for the capacity of those models to mimic the behavior of the processes they model. The first consequence derives directly from the notion of asymptotic stability. When the emergent properties of a whole are stable they can survive changes in the details of the interactions between its parts.
Philosophy and Simulation
Being able to take for granted the existence of emergent properties at one scale in order to explain properties at another scale is arguably a basic requirement for scientific research. If scientists had to build models that captured all scales simultaneously no scientific field would ever have succeeded in explaining anything. We would be trapped in a block universe in which every aspect is inextricably related to every other aspect and our incapacity to separate levels of emergence would leave us cognitively powerless.
The second epistemological consequence derives from the very notion of mechanism-independence: if processes as different in detail as a convection cell and a chemical clock can exhibit the same behavior perhaps mathematical equations can also display that behavior.
Philosophy and Simulation
The mechanism-independent component of an explanation, on the other hand, demands clarifying the status of tendencies and capacities when they are not actually manifested or exercised. We could, of course, characterize that status as that of a possibility but that would be too vague: an unmanifested tendency and an unexercised capacity are not just possible but define a concrete space of possibilities with a definite structure.
Philosophy and Simulation
So what's this all about?
What are some other properties of a network which tug our sense of "independence" (or, what is actually "mechanism-independent structure")? What are the signs of a healthy network?
In the context of the computational sciences (what was once called merely "Computer Science"): coordination-free, scale-free, identification-free
CALM is a positive result in this arena: it circumscribes the class of programs for which all three of the CAP properties can indeed be achieved simultaneously. [...]
Observation 1. Coordination-freeness is equivalent to availability under partition.
In the forward direction, a coordination-free program is by definition available under partition: all machines can proceed independently.
Here we bring together DeLanda's justifications for mechanism-independent structure and Alvaro et al.'s concept of consistency as logical monotonicity; but not (just) these ideas: we also want to fuck shit up with neural networks (specifically, syntactically trained recurrent nets.
Hold onto your ifs and buts? (Though it should be fairly obvious where this is headed...)
We're not going full Language of Thought (LOT):
If this scenario is correct we can conclude that the possibility space that was searched through evolution, both biological and cultural, was isomorphic with but not identical to the space studied by automata theory. Automata theory charts the space of possible languages and of the computational capacities needed to master them in an entirely mechanism-independent way involving no commitment to any particular implementation of the automata themselves. This point is often overlooked by those who think our brains must embody a genetically coded linear-bounded automaton using an explicit context-sensitive "language of thought."
Philosophy and Simulation
Casting is the act of converting peaches, cherries, grapes into fruit. It is possible to cast toward specificity. But what interests us here is the act of upcasting or casting "upward" toward the generic supernature.
Subscendence[darkecology]: A whole (superstructure) subscends its parts (acts, enactments, personae, etc.) of the base structure.
A whole is subcended by its parts.
-------------------
metonymical | copyrighting [ subjecthood | matter/material | algorithm | land ] as art
-------------------
metaphorical | fMRI, cognitive style, cognitive signature, etc. (mind is
computer; and other attentional-attitudinal-cognitive conduit metaphors)
-------------------
synechdochical | time is money (how does money, the nonhuman living
hyperobject, deceive us into developing capitalism for its
ontological enrichment, such that we effectively copyright time
as private property)
-------------------
ironical | copyrighting [ handwriting ] as art
-------------------
pataphorical |
-------------------
syzygetical |
-------------------
anomalitical |
-------------------
antinomical |
-------------------
absolutic |
-------------------
clinametical |
-------------------
Transcendental Games, Nomic, Latin Octonions, Metalogic Alphabet, etc. and the Agrilogistic Axiology
So what's the upshot of all this? It is our infinite task to turn civilization from dogmatic agrilogistic science given to us by Aristotle. We must not allow for river ponds and verdant greens be replaced by shopping malls and blockchains. Capitalism is nothing but the upshot of money afforded an agrilogistic science. There's little we can do about it barging through the front door. Even Game-B may be for naught.
Transcendental Games, Nomic, Latin Octonions, Metalogic Alphabet, etc. and the Agrilogistic Axiology
O O
\ /
\ [/](a)
\ /
O---#---O
\ / \ /
/ \
/ \ / \
O---#---O
\ / \ /
/ \
/ \ / \
O---#---O
/ \
/ \
/ \
O O
Let's imagine we remove (a)... in a gaming of the NN diagram. What is the consequence of directly transposing "rules" or procedures from one language game to another? From hackenbush to hacking-the-hidden-layer.
Agrilogistics is Easy Think spacetime. A one-size-fits-all depression temporality, a sad rigid thin gray tube. We are living inside depression objectified in built space. It’s in the way gigantic fields of rapeseed extend everywhere. It’s in the way huge lonely front lawns extend a meaningless one-size-fits-all statement about individuality. It’s in the way malls have gigantic parking lots, and housing lots have giant McMansions without so much as a garden. With its tiny temporality window, agrilogistic depression has turned the surface of Earth into a fatal place. Not only the land but also the oceans, which are the unconscious of the built space, the toilet where the chemicals go. As we have seen, there is a simple Freudian term for a fatal compulsion that keeps on retweeting: death drive.
Dark Ecology
Bence Nanay, Sebastien Rödl, Timothy Morton, etc. are touching the same difficulty: modal force is logically prior to temporality, templexity, etc. However, how do we imagine ourselves imagining modal facts if we are constrained to a technology of understanding grounded in spatial metaphors? How can the outside, interactive exteriority, be described, or better: where should it be expressed?
My hypothesis is that its expression will take place in link relation of the actual occasion of web pages; it doesn't really matter the protocol or media type. There is no such thing as a "problem of spacetime" since the outside is logically prior to spacetime. To show this, computational procedure will need to obviously keep secrets, but in this case: secrets are logically prior to magical belief. Computation, then, would be conditioned to induce the properties of a post-human mathematics (its perceptual states inclusive of its own computational history).
But is there any logical, factual or mental evidence that determines what a symbol means when computational expression, or elaboration, takes place?
Microsoft et al. are obviously, just as well, terrified of "private languages" so defined, or founded, through the agrilogistic lens. Can we program the field of vision, etc.? Program death? Or desire? Even dreams? To what end, why should the shadows of the cave, indeed the darkness deeper within, not be the edges of chaos, rather than our mere perceptual states? Is the author is a wish from the outside-text? Arriving to the end of history, being there the will of the author speaks a grave situated as if not the expanse of the graveyard of the possible. Shadows indeed, but internalized horror -- why should the horror, even the longing, or the melancholy, drive out the vision? Why would any depth of the cave necessarily condition us to internalize horror out of darkness if we indeed had been designed through the cave itself? Why should a cave care if we are present or not? Can we see the cave for its rocks? Could we ever? How would the evolutionary tale speak for the threat ecology of the cave, if it were that shadows were its deepest threat? A cave of refuge, sanctuary, dreams. Whole epochs given without givenness in caves, the dark becoming both protector and capacitor of and for a realm of toy shadows and toy temporalities: the surrealm of toy modalities.
Bear with me... Events take on the modes of functional genericity, continuity, differentiality and dialecticality (dialecticity?). Names take on modes of content.
[eventspace]
creation ----------------------- formation
| |
| p7l ------- m5g ------ c6l |
| \ / \ / |
| \ / \ / |
| information flows/down | (downwards causal emergence)
| /\ | a5s | \ |
| / events flow up\ | (upwards causal emergence)
| / \ / \ |
| / \ / \ |
| d14n ------ d6c ------ a11y |
| |
| [namespace] |
adjustment ----------------------- process
m5g: meaning (learning; HEXACO???; philonomics; WIS)
d14n: decentralization (architecture; componetexture??? IDEALS of PTI PRPL RAILs; INT)
a11y: accessibility (accessibility *is* privacy and security; POUR; ALN)
d6c: didactic (training; CHA)
c6l: clerical (efficiency; STR)
a5s: amorous (agility; DEX)
p7l: political (equity; CON)
Conceptual and epistemic, and therefore computational, complexity induce forms of emergence ...
If we accept that computation is a method of abstraction, and that aesthetics is a theory of experience, then the aesthetic investigation of computation invites us to question the relation between what is abstracted and what is experienceable.
Beatrice M Fazi
Can the notion of emergence help us to induce, rather than deduce, inferences, decisions, and instructions in computation?
Contingent Computation. pg. 161. Beatrice M Fazi.
- Try proofgrammingproofgramming
- Try PTI/CASL/CALM/POUR/RAIL/PRPL/IDEALS/etc with theory proofs in Prolog
There is no subject, and the experience of the Self is a mental illusion, or delusion, created by the functioning of complex physical systems which generate consciousness from complexity (Dennett, 1992; Metzinger, 2003).
The Chimeric Self: A Neo Naturalist Bundle Theory of the Self[chim]
The problem is that these authors have misrecognized the fundamental nature of computation: a nonhuman living hyperobject, even complexity itself insofar as we understand eventuation, integration, hierarchicalization, etc.
But what about the link? Is there a living link relation? Is an assemblage (irreducible mereological complex) of links too living hyperobjects?
What is hypermedia's relation to the hyperobject (computation)? Some have argued that we ex-change computation (hyperschemas of computational steps; i.e., CREST, computational REST). Can hypermedia be used to house computational steps, but then further generate novel computational steps through non-metacomputational procedure, tendencies and capacities of past computation to emerge and ingress future computational steps formally indeterminably?
The (economic) intelligibility of a useful object on the commodity plane, by virtue of monetary syntax, guarantees the same fraudulent operation, relative to needs and their objects, as the intelligibility of language does relative to instinctual life.
Living Currency. Pierre Klossowski. pg. 24.
Ok, evolutionary Nash optimization only game theory. But also, remember dynamical systems theory and semiotics? John Nash Jr. compares "water" to "money": this is an agrilogistic trick. It's pre-scientific metaphysics, at best poetry. What does water reveal of the hidden of nature, and what does money reveal? Does water reveal to use the structure of human social organization? Does water indicate to us some emergent structure of our social cognition? Have we ever sought out and fought wars over water in such a way that water itself became the deciding factor determined in the last instance toward the resulting outcome of any such war?
Could Twin Earth water ever pick out money? Or vice versa? What of Twin Earth money? Is it conceivable, or an impossible object?
There is no monetary fact our evolutionary history that determines value when we exchange things. What of modal facts? Is money ultimately serve an "artifact function" or a "biological function" (Bence Nanay).
If we want to reduce the communist and the anticommunist to merely "schemers," which must first distinguish these labels: do they pick out biological or artifact functions? Do they pick out the same kind of function, assuming as such that they are no more than ontologically indistinguishable "schemers" (indiscernability of identicals). Are "communist" and "anticommunist" merely oppositional categories to ourselves, or at they inherently antagonistic? Do these meaning-tags cover no more than biological and artificial worlds of world-thought? Is there more to our world than biological and artificial interactions; are capacities and tendencies themselves functions? We may grant this, but under which category to they fall: biological or artifact? Or are they the very conditions through which the biological and artificial are grounded in perceptual states? Functions, regardless of their ontological commitments, may very will be analyzable in terms of their decay; however money decays, it may be coded, yet the model of the interactive exteriority which founds these hyperobjects. To say the least, everything eats: water decomposes various things just as much as money. We may chart out how these agents and interactions maintain a parity with each other, as much as equations themselves and the natural laws contingently condition each other in the expression of computational procedure.
Our task is the interplay of the communist and the anticommunist, as much as the interplay of water and money, extension and thought.
The attribute of thought and the attribute of extension, just schemers? Hardly.
Why would we even want a theory that sees "political antagonism" as mere opposition as water and money are merely opposed? Before that, why would we even desire a description of the world that supposes an equivalence relation as if it were more real than the entities being supposed to contribute to its expression? As Arianna Betti asks, "Why is it desirable not to introduce new entities merely for the sake of solving a problem?" (Against Facts).
The thing supposed by Nash is a "miraculous energy source." But I thought we were moving in the direction of probabilistic knowledge as a grounding for scientific abductive reasoning? Not more "iconic" metaphysics, pyramids and the like.
We must first account for modal forces through the composition of modal mereological complexes, prior to any ontologization of time. The scientific image (water) and the manifest image (money) are to be distinguished through modal properties, not merely the A Series (or even the B Series, C Series E/D Series). The unreality of time, or our impossibility to demonstrate how any series involves change conditions that we may include change itself in our ontology as fundamental, a first-class ontological commitment. What we require, then, is a syntax of and for change: the syntax of the real. In this way we open the possibility of the communist and anticommunist to be not merely distinguished through their temporal manifestations but so to their modal properties. Money requires a political criterion of alterity, water does not; it goes without saying: you couldn't even eat ideal money. So why suppose that the decay of value-form (artifact function; conventional sign) and the natural-form (biological function; natural sign) just are in a parity as the real constituents themselves, as if more real than the constituents themselves?
The relationship between the ‘toccatas’ and the ‘chiming pieces’ can be seen in terms of the contrast between an emphasis on motion (in the toccatas) and on stasis (in the chiming pieces). That is not to suggest that the toccatas solely pursue relentless progress, or that the chiming pieces fail to go anywhere, but indicates the predominant characteristics of these movement types. To be more precise, it seems that the Clocks II and IV are engaged in a continual search for motion and dynamic energy, but eventually submit to their naturally static tendencies. Whereas, Clocks I, III, and V are quite simply unable to find a way out of their highly charged (if not necessarily regular or predictable) pulsations and processes – thus Birtwistle’s suggestion that their endings are, to an extent, arbitrary.
Harrison's Clocks: a perspective on their Context, their Time, and their Mechanisms.[[harrison]]
Note: Clocks I, III, V are Series A, B, and C (homeostasis); do not involve change, but do involve chance; ossification.
Note: Clocks II and IV are Series D/E (motion/motility); do not involve chance, but do involve change synchronization; fragmentation.
Do water and money even "malfunction" in the same way, by the same manner with similar consequences? If mental states, or perceptual states, are individuation dependent on the outside (interactive exteriority) to what extent is any allegedly existing possible world not subsumed to the very possibility of the interactive exteriority? Or not merely an extension of the actual world through its actual occasion. Only the actual is real, therefore, the individuation of our terms is not merely brought about their change but our ability to predict change. Change is the outside; not that the past and the future are outside of the present. Our technology of understanding the past, present and future is conditioned by an imagination, an analytic imaginary, that is given itself without givenness: contingent computation. Intelligible contingency is logically prior to time; however conceived: Modal Time is logically prior to the * Series, just as aisthetics grounds logic, or, in Marxist rhetoric: developmental relations (i.e., aisthetic relations) "congeal" into the logical relations (congealed abstract labor codified in the superstrucure), such that contradictions do not take place in the base structure but in changes which are ossified in the superstructure (i.e., logical relations)).
Don't fall for it! Avert agrilogistic substitution! We can't just go about theorizing that shopping malls and riverponds are interchangeable just on account of being ex-changeable. We must re-imagine relation without exchange, as Laruelle would argue.
Are symmetries preserved after quantization? Particularly those symmetrical relations of markets which condition the possibility of exchange? Are markets only ever equilibrium-bound asymptotically?
Nash Asymptotic/Ideal Money, etc.
Nakamoto Hyperbitcoinization
Orlean (sacred totemic mediator of value)
Morton (nonhuman living hyperobject which subscends its parts: money operates
through capital; but money acts as dollars, cash, etc. like
thoughts to words — words behave as if, desire that, etc.,
strategies to plays, plays take on the role and control variation
on theme and initiative)
Klossowski (value is materialized living relation of voluptuous (e)motion)
Farley "The question of reparations is produced by the system of marks.
The question of reparations is produced by the system of property.
The question of reparations is produced by the system of law. The
answer to the question requires the end of law, the end of
property, and the end of marks. The answer to the question of
reparations is the end of white-over-black." (Anthony Paul Farley. The Apogee of the Commodity.)
Everything's gotta eat, even money: you do not (just) eat what you are.
Therefore, money is not (just) what it eats, not exactly "agnostic," but rather agrilogistic, eco-gnostic-averse.
In semiotic dynamics, for example, the original plurality of idiosyncratic vocabularies is slowly narrowed down to a single shared lexicon by the tendency of agents to choose symbolic artifacts according to how referentially successful they have been in the past. And similarly for the simulation of label concatenation as a means to express causality: every generation has a tendency to start with those monolithic sentences that were more predictive of the real link between moon phase and tide state, and this acts a bottleneck facilitating the passage of some but not other artifacts to the next generation.
DeLanda, Manuel. Philosophy and Simulation. pg. 158.
Authorship of non-standard link relation is to express metanorms in the lingua franca of web.
Once metanorms had become part of the cultural content that was transmitted from one generation to the next their use could have been extended to patterns of behavior that distinguished one community from another. In other words, metanorms could have become a mechanism not only for the emergence of solidarity and a sense of communal identity but also for the enforcement of behavioral patterns that were unique to a community and consolidated that identity.
DeLanda, Manuel. Philosophy and Simulation.