Anti-terror Meta-systems Engineering
Pre-emptively using
holonomics and deviant logics to think through the vulnerabilites of
the
technological meta-systemic infrastructure
Kent D.
Palmer, Ph.D.
Box 1632,
Orange, CA 92856 USA
kent@palmer.name
Abstract: The major
terrorist incident of 2001 in the USA is used as an example of the
relationship
between the system schema and the meta-system
schema to show why
understanding Meta-systems Engineering beyond conventional Systems
Engineering
is, now more than ever, a necessity.
From Systems Engineering to Meta-systems Engineering
In earlier papers[1]
I have tried to explain a new paradigm and perhaps a new episteme, if
not a new
ontology, for Systems Engineering practice. One way of understanding
this new
approach is to use the extreme nihilism of terrorism as an example. In
order to
illustrate this approach it is necessary to move from what is known as
Systems
Engineering to something I call 'Meta-systems Engineering.'
Meta-systems
engineering is the complementary inverse-dual of Systems Engineering.
It not
only looks at the system as a social gestalt, "a whole greater than the
sum of its parts," but also examines the environment, or an ecosystem
of
that system which is full of other
systems that often interact in unexpected ways through the medium of
the
meta-system. That inverse-dual is what appears to us as a whole
less than the sum of its parts. It is a whole
filled with holes[2],
or niches, that systems fit into. Sometimes, we attempt to talk about
this
using the phrase “system of systems”. But, in effect, this
merely posits the
same schema, the “system”, at another level of abstraction
which hides the
meta-system. Meta-systems are very different from systems. They are
essentially
different ontological schemas that can be used for looking at things
around us.
Systems are unified syntheses while Meta-systems are deconstructed
fields that
are the background to systems which remain both perceptually and
conceptually
invisible for the most part, until the system breaks down. When the
system does
break down, then as Heidegger says, this background becomes
highlighted. That
is what has happened in the wake of the terrorist attacks. This
invisible
background, where safety and security are achieved or lost, has come to
the fore
as an all-important issue.
Toward Understanding Nihilism Implicit In The Technological System
Meta-systems are
disunited, detotalized totalities[3].
They are fields within which systems take shape and interact. One kind
of
system is the air travel system. Another kind of system is urban
high-rise
office complexes. We know that a plane might accidentally fly off
course and
hit a high building so we control traffic routes and place lights on
the
buildings to make them, in effect, light houses in the sky. Yet in all
our
safety and security planning we did not think of the diabolical
connection
between a car bomb and a high-jacking, two anti-technologies that, when
put
together by the hands of terrorists, who realized an undesired
side-effect of
our own designs, made possible a catastrophe of gigantic and horrible
proportions. We merely failed to think broadly enough when we created
our
designs of these technological systems. We could have installed
reinforced
secure cockpit doors from the beginning but it did not occur to us.
Until this
happened, even if such reinforcements had existed, the crew would have
opened
those doors in order to deal with the terrorists, because the pilots
would have
assumed that the terrorists would not be able to pilot an aircraft
themselves,
and that they would ultimately want to live. When we design systems we
do not
tend to think about the environments or eco-systems that those systems
will
inhabit; especially extended environments like the entire technological
infrastructure of our society and the geo-politics of the world. Also
we don’t
effectively plan how we deal with the
side effects of our technological system. Thus the side effects come
back many
times to haunt us, causing problems that are deep and difficult to
resolve,
like the problem of global warming for instance. Unforeseen
side-effects from
an interaction of multiple systems that were all designed independently
are
also a large source of problems in our society, such as the catastrophe
we have
just experienced. Thus, Systems Engineers are called upon to make our
systems
more difficult to infiltrate, and more inter-operational, with better
security
and fewer safety gaps. Because there are probably so many possible ways
of
using the technological infrastructure against itself, we realize that
it is
impossible to plan for or to design around them all. And this brings us
to the
deeper problem, the problem of nihilism which is at the heart of
technology
itself. This was observed by several different philosophers such as
Nietzsche
and Heidegger as summarized by P. Fandozzi, in his book Nihilism
and
Technology[4].
The myriad
views of the technological system and infrastructure that could expose
all
these vulnerabilities demonstrate a need for a much more sophisticated
level of
Systems Engineering that I will define as
Meta-systems Engineering. We have had Specialty Engineering
before, but
now that part of our discipline needs to increase its vigilance a
hundred fold
in order to produce the kinds of robust systems that can reduce our
vulnerabilities. As these systems are being designed, what is called
for is a
further splintering of viewpoints and an intensification of the gaze
from those
viewpoints on the technological system itself as well as its
infrastructure.
That in itself could be seen from a philosophical viewpoint as an
intensification of nihilism. The nihilism of our enemy works on us
because it
causes an intensification of the very splintering that we need to do in
order
to produce the systems themselves. In other words the terrorism is a
latent
possibility within the technological society. In fact, it
comes from the technological society. Historically,
terrorism was first used in Europe against other Europeans in the same
manner
that it is still being used today. Terrorism is defined as a leveraged
use of
technology that will produce death and destruction by so called
'illegitimate
forces' rather than by state institutions. These illegitimate forces
believe
they have nothing to lose in their fight against state institutions or
the
societies that support these state institutions.[5]
This misuse of the power of technology is an inherent possibility in
the
proliferation of the technological system. The
technological system works on the basis of the fragmentation of
viewpoints. The
extreme of terrorism merely intensifies this fragmentation by creating
yet more
viewpoints from which we must consider our designs in order to fend off
the
misuse of the technological system. There is an endless escalation in
that
splintering of viewpoints and that is the inherently nihilistic aspect
of
technology itself. The system as social gestalt is the focus of the
myriad
viewpoints, while the meta-system is the fragmented origin of those
viewpoints.
Increased intensification of the gaze and the multiplication of the
viewpoints
causes us to shift our interest from focusing on the system,
to focusing on the source
of the splintered viewpoints, which make up the meta-systemic fabric
that
encompasses the various viewpoints within the environment of the
system. We are
ultimately forced to wonder if intense vigilance from a myriad of
disciplined
points of view is sustainable. We cannot watch everything all the time.
We
cannot consider all the possible misuses of technology. We are
ultimately going
to have to accept some level of risk. The question is how much risk
will that
be in an environment where diabolical illegitimate forces are running
amok[6].
Schema Theory and Schema Engineering
One way to approach this
effort is to change our
understanding of Systems Engineering and to attempt to increase our
sensitivity
to the environments and the ecologies surrounding our systems, which are
fundamentally different from the systems themselves. I will refer to
these
surrounding environments and ecologies as “meta-systems[7].”
We need to do this anyway because of global environmental concerns. Now
we have
a new reason to consider the hidden interstices between our designed
systems,
which are built to promote safety, and security, and we need to make
our
systems more robust in the face of threats from terrorists.
‘Meta-systems
Engineering[8]’
leads us
beyond the schema of the ‘system’ into a hierarchy of
several different schemas
that are all different and unique ways of organizing and understanding
what we
find in nature.
In
general this calls for the development of what I have called Schema
Theory, and
its practical application, which can be called Schema Engineering. In
this case
the set of schemas are ontological levels of order that we project onto
the
ontic[9]
world beyond ourselves. The schemas I have in mind are as follows:
|
Pluriverse[10] |
|
Kosmos[11] |
|
World[12] |
|
Domain[13] |
|
Meta-system[14] |
|
System[15] |
|
Form[16] |
|
Pattern[17] |
|
Monad[18] |
|
Facet[19] |
This hierarchy of schemas
illustrates
the various models of order, or
organizations, that we project into the phenomena we apprehend.
The
phenomena in itself has various levels of emergent ordering which we
discover
through the projection of these schemas. I am not saying that these are
the
only schemas, or that the schema hierarchy is exactly ordered in this
way. This
series is an example, a trial model that shows how the nesting of
schemas could
be ordered. What we really need to do is to research this inward
horizon and
attempt to determine the nature of these schemas and how they differ
from the
ontic ordering of the phenomena that is discovered by science. Science discovers the emergent ontic
hierarchy in Nature through a rebound from the projection of our schemas,
i.e. through the anomalies that show up in the aftermath of the
projection of
the schemas onto phenomena. For the most part we tend to mix up our
schemas
with the actual discovered ordering
of the phenomena. We assume that systems are “out there” in
nature and we
forget that they are imposed
organizations. In other words, our minds and perceptual organs have
a
natural harmonic inbuilt ordering that is projected on all phenomena.
We
normally think that our seeing and understanding is neutral so that the
projected order becomes hidden in the midst of the different discovered
order,
when in actuality we need to separate the projected order from the mix
of
orderings so that we get a view of things that does not have an
anthropocentric
bias. Schema theory is a way for us to make that separation while it
can also
serve as a theoretical guide for Systems Engineers to design systems,
meta-systems, domains, and worlds. Our designs are based on the schemas
we
project as the context and content of whatever we are focused on
creating. At
its core our design is a system of embodied projections, thus the
schemas are
the basis of our Engineering work. Therefore, to understand our own
design
processes it is important for us to understand these schemas that are
the basis
of our projections that give coherence to our designs.
We tend to think of
mathematical
categories as the basis of our designs and as the basis of our
perceptions of
order in nature. But in the last fifty years or so a new kind of
Mathematics
called Model theory has shown us the important relation between
universal
algebra and logic. This allows us to begin to mathematically model the
models
and theories that underlie our mathematical understanding.
Schema’s theory is
something of a higher order beyond the models and theories of
mathematical
categories. In fact, schemas inhabit a middle ground between
these theories and philosophical categories. Aristotle and
Kant developed the most famous tables of philosophical categories. As a
starting point, I prefer the modern category theory of Ingvar Johansson
articulated in his book Ontological Investigations[20]
which is based on the Logical Investigations[21]
of Edmund Husserl. It is an attempt to
articulate the highest concepts and their differences and
interrelations.
Schemas are particular constellations of these highest concepts, such
as the
difference between quality and quantity, unity and totality, etc.
existing in
fundamentally different emergent orders. Beneath the level of the
schemas are
the concrete theories that we produce in science based on the implicit
ordering
of the schemas that we project onto nature and ourselves. Philosophical
categories and Schemas are important to understand in order for us to
comprehend the relation between our theories
of phenomena and the phenomena itself.
Now, the phenomena always goes beyond our schemas, but the
schemas are
the basis for our understanding the phenomena. It is in the difference
between
the implicit schemas and the anomalous violation of their categories
that cause
our theories to actually reflect the world. But, on the other hand, our
design
work is directly founded on the assumption of the schemas and,
ultimately, the
philosophical categories. What we want to do is to expunge all
anomalies from
our systems designs and their interaction with the real world. If we
did not
have the schemas behind our designs we would falter because our designs
would
fail to have inner coherence. We might have multiple theories or
designs from
various perspectives, but the schemas provide a bridge between the
various
theories and the designs by providing an underlying unity of
understanding,
which is, in turn, based on fundamental concepts created by the mind.
If it
were not for the schemas and categories implicit in our
conceptualization of
the designs and theories of phenomena, we would not be able to
communicate
rationally with each other. Understanding the foundations of
rationality is the
first step in comprehending the irrational.
The Technological Systems and the Technological Infrastructure
Systems
Engineering needs to disentangle its projected schemas from the
phenomena;
for example, projections such as our assumption that no one
would want to hijack a plane and commit suicide by intentionally flying it into a tall building. We
unknowingly built this assumption of basic humanity and rationality
into the
designs of our technological infrastructure. In each case our view of
what we
were building stopped at the aviation system and at the urban building
system.
We did not think of the system of systems
that included both views. We need to
include a view of our vulnerabilities
with respect to those others who do not share our fundamental
assumption that
life is preferable to death, and our assumption that intentional mass
murder is
unthinkable. Now we have to rethink all our systems in terms of the
“system of
systems” to which they belong. When we say “system of
systems” we are actually
projecting a nesting of systems within
systems. However, by doing that we must also consider something
implicit --
another schema that lies above that of the system in the ontological
hierarchy.
Just as there is a form represented as a figure on the background in
the whole
of the gestalt, there is a deeper background on which the gestalt of
the system
is seen. That deeper background is called the proto-gestalt
when viewed perceptually, and it is called the
meta-system when thought about conceptually. The meta-system is what
comes from
thinking of the notion “system of systems,” not in terms of
the nesting of the
same schema inside itself, but in terms of taking the system to its
meta-level,
i.e. beyond itself to a new level of emergent organization that is
different
from the system. “Meta” can mean either above or beyond.
Here we use it in the
sense of beyond, but beyond to something different, a different level
of
theoretical organization that lies outside the system, as it becomes
the
complimentary inverse-dual of the system. This, 'taking of the system
to its
meta-level,' where we are talking about an essentially different
structure,
needs to be further explored in terms of its significance to Systems
Engineering.
If we merely look at the
nesting of the
systems within the higher order system, for example the air
transportation
system and the high-rise office buildings of the urban system within
the
greater technological infra-structure, then we are going to miss the
essential
features of the landscape of the infra-structure that only theories
based on
meta-systems can comprehend. Meta-systems do not work like Systems. We
know
this as a result of our development of computer software systems,
because there
we explicitly developed meta-systems called “operating systems[22]”
within which the various lower level systems we call
“applications” inhabit.
The infrastructure is not merely a passive landscape that holds the
various
large scale technological systems. Rather, the infrastructure is more
like an
‘operating system’ that provides resources and an arena
within which these
other large scale technological systems interoperate. The
paradigm shift that we saw in the terrorist attack of September 11th
2001 is a result of the realization that certain people
understood the
interdependency of technological systems in a way that the designers
never
dreamed of. They saw that they could easily introduce an
anti-technology
into the vulnerabilities of the designs of the technological systems, because the meta-system was left undesigned.
This is a general problem within the entire technological
infrastructure of the
world. The technological infrastructure, understood and defined in
terms of a
meta-system, was left undesigned. Why? Because we cannot see it with
our
theoretical or design gaze. This is because we have no general theory
of
meta-systems other than that which we are given by the discipline of
ecology.
And, in that case, we are talking about the meta-system
of nature and not designed
meta-systems such as we see in the “operating
systems” for computer software applications. The term
“operating system” is
unfortunate because it suggests that its object is a system schema,
when in
fact it is another kind of schema all together. And that schema is the
complementary inverse-dual of the system schema, i.e. the meta-system.
The
relation between the system and meta-system is precisely the same as
the
relation between the Turing machine and the Universal Turing machine. A
Universal Turing machine is an “operating system” for
Turing machines.
Universal Turing machines make it possible to read Turing machines from
the
tape of a Turing machine while instantiating them one after another. In
this
sense there is a Turing machine inside another Turing machine. This
nesting is
not just a system inside another system but has another 'implicit
sense' in
which the coherence of the nested schema
inside itself has a different essence from the un-nested
schema. Saying the word “system” twice in “system
of
system” actually produces something quite different from the
system not
involved in such a nesting. This is what Godel discovered in his famous
"incompleteness proof." His proof counts mathematical elements,
meaning that it turns the counting system against itself and shows that
systems
are intrinsically incomplete, and that there are undecidable statements
that
cannot be placed definitely inside or outside the system. Some
statements of a
formalism stand undecideably right on the boundary of the system. This
is seen
in the foundations of the formal system itself where different
variations of a
single axiom produce complementary formalisms.
Incompleteness at the boundaries, and the complementarity of the
axioms
of these formal systems hints that meta-systems do exist where we try
to bend
back the system on itself, either at the level of axiomatic origins or
at the
level of the boundaries of the system.
Think of it this way. A
system has an
inside and an outside. The inside of the system is in effect the
complementary
inverse-dual of the outside of the system. When you place a system
inside
another system, then the outside of the system has a very different
relation to
the inside of the encompassing system. Suddenly when the system is
within an
environment of the encompassing system it is experienced as a
meta-system. Meta-systems are like the turning of the
system inside out, or better yet like the deconstruction of the system
into a
field. Nietzsche posited that Subjects are Objects turned inside
out.
Similarly, at a different schematic level, meta-systems are systems
turned
inside out. We refer to the discipline that looks at the duality of
systems and
meta-systems as holonomics, after the
holon of Koestler which is both a
part and whole at the same time. The system within the meta-system is a
whole
greater than the sum of its parts situated within a whole less than the
sum of
its parts[23].
We have not made a
significant paradigm
shift in our perceptions or conceptions that would allow us to view the
complementary inverse-dual of the "system" schema. Yet, terrorists
have managed to do that. The unimaginable
quality of their deed comes precisely from making that shift. So
now we
need to make that shift ourselves, in order to counter their intent as
best we
can. We need to begin to design the
meta-system of the technological infrastructure, rather than merely
considering it a ‘system of systems,’ which means
considering it in terms of
the outward aspects of one system within the outward aspects of another
system.
When we do that we miss the field-like qualities of the meta-system
that flows
in between the two nested systems. Rather, when we look at our own
technological infrastructure we need to explicitly concentrate on those
features of the meta-system that are normally hidden from our design or
theoretical gaze. We need to understand the essence of meta-systems
and how they are different from systems. Until we
understand this difference and use it to see the
vulnerabilities that are normally hidden to us, then we will remain
vulnerable.
The technological infrastructure needs to be redesigned as an
“operating
system” for the various technological systems that it comprises
rather than
remaining a passive undesigned landscape which is merely the
hinterlands
between the various designed systems. It
is in these hinterlands and in these interstices that the terrorist has
learned
to strike. We must learn from our experience in designing
space-worthy
environments, where every gap is seen as a possible weakness for the
breach of
the atmosphere of the spaceship or space station. In other words, when
we
design for space-travel we consider all the contingencies within the
integration of the various technological systems that make up the
entire
architecture of the space environment. We need to begin to design earth
systems
the same way, including an understanding of the various ways that the
technological systems within the technological infrastructure can be
used
against one another to produce gaping vulnerabilities that might be
exploited
by others. We have already learned this lesson with our computer
systems which
are violated and compromised by hackers. However, up to this point,
hackers
seem to operate, for the most part, as malevolent pranksters exploiting
the
meta-systemic qualities of the internet. They seem to be content with
merely
stealing or destroying data. And although this behavior is destructive
and
criminal, it is less repugnant than the committing of mass murder. But,
theoretically mass murder could be committed by hackers if the security
of the
control system of some dangerous resource capable of mass destruction
were to
be breached, like a nuclear plant, for example.
We have said that the
system and the
meta-system are essentially different. It behooves us to mention some
of those
differences. However, when we do that we are entering an ill understood
territory where much work needs to be done in order to firm up these
hints in
order to produce a robust theory of meta-systems to complement the
general
systems theory that has been created over the years[24].
One of the basic aspects of meta-systems, as pointed out by Arkady
Plotnitski
in his book Complementarities[25],
is that Meta-systems are made up of “complementarities of
complementarities.” Notice
that here again is a doubling like that of the “system of
systems.” This shows
that we are again in the beyond of
the meta-system where there is an intensification that goes beyond the
mere
doubling of the concept. In the English language prior to the
seventeenth
century, it was meaningful to repeat negations, superlatives and other
constructions that grammarians eventually decided were not meaningful.
Now we
say that two negatives make a positive because
that became the conventional rule in the restricted economy of
classical
logic. But prior to this, the repetition was considered meaningful and
there
are examples of up to four negatives in a sentence written by Chaucer[26].
This phenomena where repetition produces intensification, not
cancellation, is something
that is operative in the meta-systems
way of thinking as opposed to the systematic
way of thinking. We talk about the logical system in which two
negatives make a
positive. But on the other hand there is the moral compass in which it
is said
that two wrongs don’t make a right. We recognize that morality is
a meta-system
where there is intensification flowing from repetition. So when we talk
about
the “complementarities of complementarities” that appear in
the meta-system
much like the way that they appear in the scientific philosophy of
Bohr, there
is a sense that this intensification of complementarity is something
different
from a particular complementarity nested in another. In fact, the
intensification leads us to the nature of the field that allows itself
to be
folded back on itself in the nesting process. That field has the
properties
that Bohr posited in which there is a sustained superficiality that
indicates there is nothing behind the
complementarities themselves. Bohr posited that there was nothing like
Bohm’s[27]
‘pilot waves’ beyond the tissue of complementarities
themselves, and he was
vindicated by the tests of Bell’s Theorem in which there is
action at a
distance between complementary particles without any medium producing
the
action at a distance that may be discerned. This strange characteristic
of
nature that quantum mechanics puzzles over, but finds substantiated in
physical
experiments, makes clear that we can either look at the thing
(particle) or the
field (wave) effects of any particular entity[28].
When we move from the system to the meta-system we are making a similar
complementary transformation of our theoretical vision. The field of
meta-systems is a superficial tissue of complementarities
of complementarities with indefinite nesting and nothing grounding
its
phenomenality. In fact, we know our system has reached and interacted
with a
meta-systemic field when that field has demanded a complementary
action. For
instance, we can see this inherent complementarity in the read
and write operations
when software interacts with the operating system. A meta-system always
demands
that an embedded system perform to a specific protocol[29].
The designs of our systems are constrained by these implicate
complementarities
of the meta-systems that they inhabit.
The meta-system acts as a
filter on the
systems that inhabit it. Just as it is difficult for a program to run
under
different operating systems the same can be said for general
meta-systems. They
exclude systems that are not tailor-made to operate in their
environment. We
see the meta-system as having four complementary aspects: origin,
arena,
source, and boundary. Origin and Arena are complementarities as well as
Source
and Boundary and the two pairs form
a higher-level complementarity. Systems that appear within the
meta-system all
have points of origins within the medium of the field. Until they reach
their
destinations, which are called sinks, and they interact within the
arena of the
meta-system. During this interaction meta-systems provide resources for
the
systems that inhabit them and they impose constraints on them. These
constraints are a sort of testing regime that will reject systems from
niches
within the meta-system that do not conform to the interfaces of the
meta-system. All meta-systems have boundaries beyond which other
meta-systems
exist. They also have sources, like template objects, from which the
systems
inside them are derived, prior to instantiation. Understanding the
complex
interplay of complementarities that make up a meta-system out of the
facets of
origin, arena, boundary and source is the key to explaining how systems
interact within the meta-system. When we double the meta-system, i.e.
look for
the meta-system of meta-systems, then
we discover the domain. Doubling the domain gives us a world and this
series of
doublings reaches up through the ontological hierarchy of schemas.
We inherently
understand this. When the terrorist hijackings occurred we immediately
looked
for the origins of the plot and sought out its sources. We understood
that the
whole globe was the arena in which terrorist networks might lurk but we
traced
its origin back to Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Another source is said to
be a
certain form of fundamentalist Islamic jurisprudence called Wahabism
exported
by Saudi Arabia. However, we realized that terrorism is a world wide
phenomena
and that there are ultimately no boundaries for it in the global arena.
Individuals can easily move across borders and throughout the world
dispersing
and regathering. By default, "the third world war" has become a
global war against terrorists comprised of small groups of illegitimate
forces,
and this seems to have intensified the need for the "new world order"
of corporate economic and international globalization.
In this case, this so called "new
order" is now being dictated by the Western powers, now not just as a
means of the furtherance of economic colonialization, but now as a
means of
self defense against future attacks. In other words, by the very fact
that the
terrorists killed themselves in the act of committing their crimes
against
humanity, we are led to think more deeply about the meta-system that
caused
that phenomena to arise. Occasionally we even think about the
international
policy of the USA and how it may have contributed to our becoming a
target[30]. We
immediately turn to the meta-system when the system vanishes. The
meta-system
is highlighted when the system fails or disappears through an act of
self-destruction caught within the more massive destruction of the Other
which in this case is us.
The four
aspects of the
meta-system: Origin and Source, Arena and Boundary, have another
meaning in
relation to terrorism that should be noted. Generally, terrorism is an
intensification of violence against civilians and non-combatants. The
ultimate
intensification of this violence would be achieved by weapons of mass
destruction which might include nuclear or biological devastation. The
ultimate
limit of this intensification would be the destruction of the whole
human
species, which would have its own irony because it is we who are
responsible
for the decimation of many of the other species on earth. It would be
ironic if
we were to also destroy ourselves as well. But here we want to point to
the
fact that terrorism has a spectrum of intensification with an ultimate
limit,
which stretches from the harming of one civilian non-combatant to all
humanity.
Terrorism moves up through this spectrum of intensity in order to move
the
transcendental distance from origin in the arena to source
outside of the arena prescribed by the
meta-systemic general economy. The source is the supporting society or
county
which stands behind the origin of apparent oppression. So Al-Qaida
attacks the
USA because it sees it as supporting the oppressive local regimes
ruling over
the Middle East. The Palestinians attack Israeli society in order to
get to the
source of the oppression in the occupied territories by the Israeli
army. In
each case, the intensification of terrorism targets what is viewed as
the
source of the oppression. But this has a flip side, which has to do
with the
dual of the Origin and Source, which is Arena and Boundary. Pacifism is
the
contradictory opposite of Terrorism. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and
Nelson
Mandela attempted to follow a path of pacifism. In this path an Arena
in which
oppression is practiced by some dominant force is defined. Those
suffering
under this oppression use peaceful protest and civil disobedience in
order to
call attention to their plight. They sustain injury from the powers
that be and
they absorb these injuries until they reach the limit or boundary of
the
tolerance of the supporting population. Once that limit is reached,
which is
the limit of the constraint of the meta-system over the system, then
the
supporting society may change its attitude and bring about the
necessary
changes to alleviate the situation for those who are oppressed and
absorbing
the violence of the state or the society. In one case the oppressed
attempt to
take violence beyond the immediate oppressor to the source of support
of the
oppressor. In the other case, the protester uses pacifism and absorbs
violence
from the oppressor attempting to push the supporting population to its
limit
until public opinion changes against the oppressive regime. The height
of this
approach was the self-immolation of Buddhist monks in Vietnam. Here the
terrorism was directed back at oneself in protest rather than at the
other. In
order to understand these strange states of intensified violence toward
the
self and others, or the extreme states of “turning the other
cheek” and
absorbing the violence of the other, it is necessary to have a logic of
paradox. This is because pacifism and terrorism are dual-inverse
opposite
paradoxes which may even occur in the same situation. Different groups
may
attempt to appropriate these diametrically opposed strategies in the
same
conflict leading to vicious circles, and eventually absurdity, and
perhaps,
even to insanity.
General and Restricted Economies
Plotnitsky[31]
brilliantly connects the concepts of Bohr concerning complementarity
with those
of Bataille[32]
concerning
the difference between General and Restricted economies. Meta-systems
are General Economies as opposed to the Restricted
Economies of Systems. By
applying an anthropological perspective, Bataille attempted to rethink
political economy on the basis of the anomalous political organizations
found
around the world. He realized that what we normally think of as the
"rational economy" is extremely limited and that it was many times
embedded in a greater economy which was not rational. When Aristotle
called us
rational animals, he defined us in terms of an ideal. But much of what
human
beings do is utterly irrational, a fact that the terrorist attacks have
clearly
shown us. The general economy is irrational rather than rational.
Rational
means that reasons are given for action. Reason is to action what
Logical proof
is to thought. We deem suicide bombing as irrational. When the suicide
bomber
wears a whole airplane instead of merely some packs of explosives (and
aims at
large buildings) we think of it as a monstrous irrationality. This is a
characteristic of the negative use of the general economic way of
looking at
things. Bataille gives the example of the potlatch of the Northwestern
Native
American Indians where social value was gained by the destruction of
wealth as
an example of this "negative use". Bataille also uses the example of
the Aztec Indians who killed myriad people in succession by tearing out
their hearts
in order to give life to their gods. Irrationality
moves very quickly from the gross destruction of commodities to the
gross
destruction of human life and we must remember that these
irrational
transformations are ways of producing transcendental value in those
societies.
Honor goes to those who can destroy the most wealth. The
eternal life of the gods is made possible by the continual
sacrifice of human beings. In the case of the terrorists, personal
entry
into paradise[33]
as well as
generating change in the world is produced by their act of supposed
altruism[34].
However, we have the sense that these irrational ways of acting are at
the same
time utterly chaotic or completely incomprehensible when we look at
them from
within the restricted economies set up by Reason. Rather,
the meta-system has its own essential structure that is
fundamentally different from the reason and logic that we normally
appeal to. In
order to understand meta-system schema, we must produce a concept akin
to
Mathematical Model Theory, although this concept must be different and
encompass a higher level of generality. Mathematical Model Theory is
the
combination of universal algebra and classical first order logic. What
we need
instead, is a kind of theory that combines meta-systems theory, which
is rooted
in universal algebra, and a kind of non-classical logic that
comprehends the
structure of paradox and absurdity. In this case a good logic for us to
use in
this case is that of N. Hellerstein called Diamond[35].
What we want to do is to consider universal algebra as generally
including all
the hyper-imaginaries and the various levels of algebraic ordering
including
the real, complex, quaternion, octonion, sedenion and infinite degrees
of
non-division algebras. It is these algebraic structures that determine
the
inherent ordering of meta-systems theory, and it is these differences
in
algebras that produce the Special Systems[36]
that are embedded in meta-systems. The algebras relate to reason
through
countability. Counting is a fundamental perceptual and motor action,
which
gives us the basic sub-structures for the differentiation of our
concepts. But
we go beyond counting when we use language based on the structures of
logic[37]
to manipulate these distinguished concepts.. Traditionally we have not
accepted
logics that comprehend paradox and contradiction, so called
"para-consistent logics." But in order to understand things like the
absurdity of terrorism we must admit that such deviant logics do exist.
By
opening up the grounds of the restricted economy of their Model Theory
and by
combining universal algebra with paradoxical logic, we get something
that might
be called Meta-model Theory, i.e. a theory that goes beyond the
restricted
economy of traditional model theory developed by mathematicians. We do
that by
not only including models of mathematical categories, but also by
including the
implicit schemas and categories that underlie those models as well as
deviant
logics. Meta-model theory can be called a theory of the nesting of the
"model
of models" or it can be called a schema theory. The "schema of
schemas" is, in turn, a philosophical category theory with one
additional
step that leads us to the level of ontology. Ontology supplies us with
an
understanding of the various kinds and aspects of Being
as an ultimate foundation for our understanding of the
various kinds of schemas.
Here
we would like to pause and point out that at the ontological level
there are
both different kinds of Being and
different aspects of Being. The kinds
of Being come from the intensification of Being itself through the
process of
repeated interfolding to produce Pure[38],
Process[39],
Hyper[40]
and Wild[41]
Being. Each level of intensification
has different emergent characteristics[42].
But also at the level of Being are the aspects[43]:
truth (x is y), reality (x is), identity
(x is x) and presence (this is x). As
I have shown in previous papers, the pairwise relations between these
aspects
have properties such as consistency, completeness, well-formedness
(clarity),
coherence, verifiability, and validity. Normally, formal systems only
deal with
consistency, completeness, and clarity. But when we add the aspect of
reality,
then these new properties that we know so well in Systems Engineering,
i.e.
coherence, verifiability and validity, become important. Model theory
connects
validity and consistency. A valid statement is deemed true. A model is
specifically the target of a consistent and true set of statements in
first
order classical logic. This is, of course, incomplete according to
Godel when a
model is considered as a system. At infinity coherence is achieved at
the
semantic level and this is called a theory. This suggests that there is
a
similar connection between completeness and coherence, and between
clarity and
verification in relation to theories. In other words, we extend model
theory,
which attempts to model semantics in parallel to the syntactic level,
by
applying the interjection of reality as a test. Injection of reality
has, as
its opposite, the achievement of coherence at infinity. Instead of
focusing on
just three aspects of Being as normal model theory does, we interject
the
fourth aspect which is normally forgotten. That interjection causes our
logic
to be fundamentally different because now it is necessary to extend our
truth
values beyond the traditional true
and false as well as the both and neither of deviant logics. Now we also need to consider
the values
real/illusory, identical/different and present/absent as well.
Ultimately, the Diamond
logic of Hellerstein, based on G. Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form,
will
have to be extended into what I call a 'Vajra
logic' which includes all the aspects of Being beyond just truth
and
falsehood[44].
Diamond
Logic comprehends the paradoxicality and absurdity of terrorism. It
posits that
there are two fixed points, identified by Spencer-Brown, as 'i'
and 'j'. Hellerstein interprets them as true,
but false and false,
but true in a dynamic system where there are repeating truth
values. True in this scheme means true
but true and false means false but
false.
Hellerstien gives the example of the circuit that produces the buzzer.
The twin
paradoxes i and j are like two
buzzers. When these are interleaved as inverses of
each other they either produce an illusory continuity which is the
equivalent
of absurdity or cancellation. The illusory continuity of the idea has
as its
implicit infra-structure an absurdity that bifurcates into paradoxical
duals.
Paradox raised to the power of paradox can be seen as an oscillation or
circulation among paradoxes. So for terrorism this is the paradox alive but dead which is transformed into
the paradox dead but alive. In other
words the terrorists enter a liminal state where they are socially
considered
already dead before they have
actually committed suicide, and this is what allows them to carry out
the
destructive acts that will produce transcendental value in the
meta-system.
There, within the meta-system, they will be transformed into dead but alive in a deviant paradise of
their own which we consider hell[45].
Liminal states are not comprehended by normal classical logic, nor does
classical logic comprehend an absurdity which is a combination of
liminal
states or a transformation from one liminal state to another. However, it is precisely this "deviant
logic" that comprehends the thinking of the terrorists as they consider
the meta-system of the technological infrastructure that shows through
the
interstices between the various technological systems. In order to
apprehend the world as the terrorists do, we need to understand and
apply
paradoxical and absurd logics as a means of preempting their strikes
from the
shadowy realm of our own blind spots.
When
we look into this meta-system we can see that it is filled with
monsters, as in
antique maps where monsters lurk at the ends of the earth. There we see
black
holes, or paradoxical energy sinks, and miracles, or paradoxical energy
sources, which go off the scale exponentially when given positive feed
back.
Aboard the boats of our restricted economies, we assiduously avoid
these
monsters when we sail these stormy seas. The combination of blackhole
paradoxes
and miraculous paradoxes together produce the absurdities that we call
singularities. The singularities create catastrophes like those
characterized
by Rene Thom[46]
where the
field of the meta-system folds through itself to produce anomalous
discontinuous points of transformation in the seascape[47].
All of these effects of the meta-system
can take situations completely out of our control. In fact we see a
progression toward this in the various kinds of Being which have the
modalities
of being-in-the-world called present-at-hand[48],
ready-to-hand[49],
in-hand[50]
and out-of-hand[51].
In other
words, when we combine the concept of the meta-system with the Diamond
or Vajra logics, we are inadvertently
defining the necessity of stepping through the various meta-levels of
Being.
Normal static entities with illusory continuity have Pure Being and our
modality in the world when we relate to them is the
"present-at-hand." When
entities become dynamic, we then enter Process Being and our modality
in the
world becomes "ready-to-hand." This is the modality where the
Technological system supports us without our being aware of it. As we
know from
Zeno, contradictions appear at this level. Motion in the world results
in
contradictions. Interfering paradoxes produce vicious circles. When
these
contradictions interfere with each other then we have a paradox that
places us
in Hyper Being and our modality of being-in-the-world becomes
"in-hand."
This is the modality where the technological system transforms within
our
hands, producing emergent events and genuinely new phenomena like the
surprise
of the terrorist event on September 11th 2001. This modality
describes how this event fundamentally changed our focus and attention
to the
meta-system in a way that was recognized by everyone. This new focus is
called
a "war" – but not a war against a conventional enemy, but rather a war against the terrorist
networks
that are the source of the atrocities that occurred: a war against
Terrorism.
"World War Three" is not like anyone had previously imagined, with
Russia and the USA now linked as temporary partners rather than as
enemies.
Finally when we begin to cycle between the twin paradoxes of i and j as fixed points, then things
truly get "out-of-hand" as
we confront absurdity. This is what Merleau-Ponty called Wild Being.
Beyond
that is only madness.[52]
We
see this clearly when we apply the Vajra
logic, that allows paradox in the dimensions of truth as well as in
reality, as well as the expanded algebraic models of order, and the
implicit
schemas and categories[53].
This produces a realm in which it is necessary to distinguish right
from wrong,
i.e. correctness, within in a realm of multifarious variety[54].
In other words, the various combinations of the technological systems
within
the technological infrastructure as meta-system are almost infinite.
Thus all
the vulnerabilities are impossible to foresee! We must design the
meta-system
of the technological infrastructure itself so that the technological
systems
become orthogonal to each other as much as possible. Thus we will
reduce the
amount of paradox and absurdity where the various technological systems
intersect in ways that can produce unwanted side effects in the hands
of those
who are prepared to think in ways that are profoundly anti-humanitarian
and
anti-technological as well. We must come to terms with those who are in
the
grips of the irrational and whose thoughts and actions are not merely
mad but
diabolical in the grip of the paradoxicality and absurdity of the
deviant
logics. Unwanted side-effects obey the higher meta-level of the Diamond
or Vajra Logics. Ultimately the only way
to counter terrorism is to learn and to think and reason in this mode
as well, i.e.
the mode that recognizes the meta-system under the influence of deviant
logics.
We must use our knowledge of the meta-system and the deviant logics to
straighten up and correct the multifarious overlapping patches of the
environment so that various things in the environment cannot be used
against
each other to produce catastrophe so easily.
Thus it becomes an
essential, and
not merely a luxury, to consider the meta-systemic view of our
technological
infrastructure and to consider ways of thinking about them in terms of
logics
that go beyond our classical logical formal system or restricted
economy of
thought.
Some people talk
about the need for thinking out of the box[55].
The tragedy of September 11th 2001 has shown us that this is
a
critical need when considering the meta-system of the technological
infrastructure, that is, the environment of the various technological
systems
that support our way of life. But this thinking outside of the box has
a
specific theoretical basis, it is not just random flailing or
miraculous
inspiration. It combines a meta-systemic view of our systems with an
appreciation for the power of deviant paradoxical and absurd logics. We
need to
take up these tools ourselves and develop them so that we can counter
the
terrorist threat within the discipline of Systems Engineering which is
now, by
necessity, transformed into Meta-systems Engineering.
About the Author
Kent
Palmer[56]
is a Principal Systems Engineer at a major Aerospace Systems Company.
He has a
Ph.D. in Sociology concentrating on the Philosophy of Science from the
London
School of Economics and a B.A. in Sociology from the University of
Kansas. His
dissertation on The Structure of Theoretical Systems in Relation to
Emergence[57]
focused on
how new things come into existence within the Western Philosophical and
Scientific worldview. He has written extensively on the roots of the
Western
Worldview in his electronic book The Fragmentation of Being and the
Path
Beyond the Void[58].
He has had nearly twenty years experience[59]
in Software Engineering and Systems Engineering disciplines at major
aerospace
companies based in Orange County, CA. He served several years as the
chairman
of a Software Engineering Process Group and is now engaged in Systems
Engineering Process improvement based on EIA 731 and CMMI. He has
presented a
tutorial on “Advanced Process Architectures[60]”
which concerned engineering wide process improvements both in software
and
systems engineering. Besides process experience, he has recently been
the
software team lead on a Satellite Payload project and a systems
engineer on a
Satellite Ground System project. He has also engaged in independent
research in
Systems Theory which has resulted in a book of working papers called Reflexive
Autopoietic Systems Theory[61].
A new introduction to this work now exists. It is called Reflexive Autopoietic
Dissipative Special Systems Theory[62]. He
has given a tutorial[63]
on "Meta-systems Engineering" to the INCOSE Principles working group.
A paper with this title was also published in the INCOSE 2000
proceedings. He
has written a series of papers on Software
Engineering Foundations
which are contained in the book Wild Software Meta-systems[64].
He has taught a course in “Software Requirements and Design
Methodologies” at
the University California Irvine Extension. (Version
0.17; 4/30/2002; et01a23.doc final)
[1] See http://archonic.net
[2] like a sponge in the most simple case
[3] See Sartre’s Critique of
Dialectical Reason (London ; New
York : Verso, 1991) for the use of this phrase “detotalized
totality” to mean
the deconstruction of the project of totalization.
[4] (Washington, D.C. :
University Press of America, c1982)
[5] The use of terror by states
will not be considered here, but this is perhaps the most controversial
aspect
of the subject, because in that case the 'illegitimate forces' become,
in the
eyes of some, 'freedom fighters'. This poses a question of the
definition of
'terrorism' and the ethics of revolt against oppression which, for the
purposes
of this paper, is not considered because it leads directly into
paradox,
vicious circles and absurdity if not insanity. However, it should be
noted that
the label 'terrorist' can, in the wrong hands, be the excuse for
prosecuting a
campaign of terror. This should lead ultimately to a discussion of
fascism in
the sense that this word was used by Foucault in his introduction to
Deleuze
and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus.
[6] Legitimate forces for the
purposes here are those who declare in the name "We the people . . ."
and so constitute themselves as a nation through constitution and law.
Legitimate forces seek to impose order within their domain and only use
the
means of police action or war when that order that serves the greater
good is
threatened.
[7] Here the META means beyond
the boundaries of the system rather than a logically higher type of
system. It
is another schema at the same level of logical typing which is the
inverse-dual
of the system.
[8] See INCOSE 2000 paper by the
same author of that title.
[9] The word "ontic"
means: at the level of things or beings, rather than at the abstract
level of
Being, which is "ontological."
[10] See David Deutsch’s The
Fabric of Reality (Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. 1997). The
pluriverse is
the intersection of all existent universes. This schema is beyond our
experience.
[11] The Kosmos or Universe is
the subject of scientific exploration. This began at the dawn of the
Metaphysical era with the work of Thales and Anaxamander. Anaximander
was the
first to write prose, the first to create a model of the cosmos and a
map of
the earth. This schema is beyond our direct experience.
[12] The world has been defined
by Heidegger as the furthest horizon of our direct experience. Husserl
called
that the lifeworld. The world is the coherence of everything that we
experience.
[13] The world that encompasses
everything is splintered into domains or disciplines that have
different
perspectives on phenomena.
[14] Also this schema might be
called the "archon" because we have no appropriate term for it. It is
comprised of contexts, situations, milieus, environments, ecosystems,
etc. They
are fields within which systems arise and interact.
[15] Perceptually this is the
level of the social gestalt characterized as a whole that is greater
than the
sum of its parts composed of figure and ground. Usually it is defined
as a set
of things and their interrelations or interactions. But this definition
is
analytical and does not account for the wholeness of the system. See N.
Rescher
in Cognitive Systematization (1979, Oxford Basil Blackwell /
USA Rowman
& Littlefield), who considers the organic metaphor that grounds our
idea of
systems.
[16] External shape of an object.
This level includes not just the external shape but also its behavior
as in
Object Oriented design. A good example of work done to define this
schema is G.
Spencer-Brown Laws of Form (1969; Allen and Unwin, London)
[17] Value, Sign, Flux and
Structure are various kinds of patterning of content. This is the
lowest level
of our experience and is dependent on the lowest level of articulation
by our
instrumentation. Both G. Klir in Architecture of Systems Problem
Solving (ASPS)
(1985, Plenum Press, New York) and U. Grenander Elements of Pattern
Theory
(Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1996) have done work to define this schema.
[18] The datum of the content
itself at whatever level of resolution. This is the limit of our direct
experience.
[19] The facet is beyond our
direct experience. It is an inner determination of difference within
the
phenomena itself, seen within itself without the projection of our
schemas.
Thus this is the null schema. It is the difference beyond the
resolution of our
instruments.
[20] (Routledge, 1989) See
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson
[21] (Routledge 1970)
[22] perhaps meaning
"systems that operate systems." i.e. meta-systems.
[23] See the paper ‘Meta-systems
Engineering Futures’ for more information on holonomics at
http://archonic.net
[24] Op cit G. Klir, ASPS
[25] (Duke U. Press. 1994)
[26] "He nevere yet
no vileynye ne sayde / In al his lyf unto no
maner wight" (General Prologue, The Canterbury Tales,
ca. 1387)
[27] David Bohm, Wholeness and
the Implicate Order, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston,
1980)
[28] Another way of looking at
this grammatically is in terms of Count and Non-count (Mass) nouns.
[29] In this way a system level
Highly Optimized Tolerant (HOT) system may become part of a meta-system
level
Self-Organizing Critical (SOC) system through the interface of a simple
protocol. Bob Cummings pointed out that this is the essence of the
signaling
protocol which governs traffic interaction. The Highly Optimized
Tolerant system
of car and driver become part of the wider Self-Organizing Critical
System of
highway traffic.
[30] All these statements are
very controversial and merely made to draw our attention to how natural
it is
to think about meta-systems once the system vanishes as it did in this
case.
This is why the example of these terrorist attacks is worth pursuing
here in
order to understand meta-systems better. Meta-systems are not just
ecologies
and environments. If they were then we would not be saying anything
new. Rather,
Meta-systems are also like fields, markets, media, in other words they
have
their own active organizing principle different from that of the system
which
is efficacious in its own right. When we talk about terrorism we have
to wonder
what role is played by the entire global field of mutual interaction,
our own
actions included.
[31] Complementarity
(Durham : Duke University Press, 1994)
[32] Accursed Share,
Volumes 1 and 2 (NY: Zone Books 1991)
[33] Paradoxically this is false
from the point of view of their own religion. The fundamental precepts
of Islam
forbids suicide. Its reward in terms of the law of Islam is endless
repetition
of the suicide. Also forbidden is the killing of innocents. In fact, it
is the
passengers and other victims that become “shaheeds” or
martyrs. The Prophet
Muhammad said Muslims should not use the punishment of God as a means
of
killing, i.e. fire and burning. Those caught in calamities such as
earth quake,
flood, or firestorm become shaheeds. Even Pharaoh becomes a shaheed
when he is
drowned in the Red Sea after pursuing Moses. By a strange absurd logic
the
violators go to hell and their victims go paradise by the rules of
their own
religion which they have defamed in attributing their action to it.
[34] What is amazing is that they
truly did change the world. But instead of America collapsing it was
strengthened and became determined to rout out global terrorism. This
was an
unintended side effect of their action that they did not foresee. They
did
change the world, but not in the way they had hoped. However, the
unintended
side effects of their actions and our response to them, which have
their own
unintended consequences, are the perfect example of the meta-system in
action.
The field of things is connected in ways we do not always understand,
the
mutual unintended consequences of their acts and our acts drives us
down
historical paths that are unexpected giving us an excellent example of
the
meta-system as a global general economy at work.
[35] Hellerstein, N.S.; Diamond:
A Paradox Logic (Singapore, World Scientific 1997)
[36] See ‘Meta-system Engineering
Futures’ by the author at http://archonic.net/
[37] We include here not just
syllogistic but also pervasion logics developed in India and China
which are
the dual of the classical Western logic.
[38] Called present-at-hand by
Heidegger in Being and Time (New York, Harper; 1962)
[39] Called Ready-to-hand by
Heidegger in Being and Time.
[40] Called the Hyper-dialectic
of Process Being of Heidegger and the Nothingness of Sartre in Being
and
Nothingness (New York : Washington Square Press 1992) by
Merleau-Ponty in The
Visible and the Invisible (Evanston [Ill.] Northwestern University
Press,
1968). Called Being
(crossed out) by Heidegger. Called Differance by Derrida in Of
Grammatology (Baltimore
: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976).
[41] Called Wild Being by
Merleau-Ponty in The Visible and the Invisible. Dealt with by
Deleuze
and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus (Minneapolis : University of
Minnesota
Press, c1983) and Thousand Plateaus (London : Athlone Press,
1988, c1987).
Discussed by John S. Hans in The Play of the World (Amherst :
University
of Massachusetts Press, 1981).
[42] These were explained in the
INCOSE 2000 paper called "Meta-Systems Engineering" by the author.
See also "Software Ontology" in Wild Software Meta-systems by the
author at http://archonic.net/apeiron.htm
[43] These are the grammatical
uses of the word “Being” in the Greek philosophical
language that persist today
in most Indo-European languages. These are the only languages that
include the
concept of “being” in their grammars.
[44] See "Vajra Logics and
Mathematical Meta-models for Meta-systems Engineering" by the author at
http:\\archonic.net where the concept of Vajra Logics is explained in
more
detail. See also INCOSE 2002 proceedings.
[45] This is also considered a
hell of endless suicide in their own religion.
[46] See Rene Thom Structural
Stability and Morphogenesis an Outline of a General Theory of Models
(Perseus Pr 1989)
[47] Systems Dynamics simulations
can effectively model both the system and the meta-system at a high
level of
abstraction through the interaction of negative and positive feedback.
[48] This is a term for a mode of
"being-in-the-world" used by Heidegger in Being and Time. It
is a mode in which the world is static and objective. Merleau-Ponty in The
Phenomenology of Perception associated it with "pointing." It is
called by the author Pure Being.
[49] This is a term for a mode of
being-in-the-world used by Heidegger in Being and Time. It is a
mode in
which the world is dynamic and embedded in the technological
infrastructure
supporting action. Merleau-Ponty in The Phenomenology of Perception
associated it with "grasping." It is called by the author Process
Being.
[50] This is a term for a mode of
"being-in-the-world" coined by the author which is associated with
what Heidegger calls "Being"
(crossed out) and what Derrida calls "differance." It
is called by the author Hyper Being after
Merleau-Ponty's term "hyper-dialectic of Being and Nothingness" used
in The Visible and the Invisible (Evanston [Ill.] Northwestern
University Press, 1968).
[51] This is a term for a mode of
being-in-the-world coined by the author which is associated with what
Merleau-Ponty calls Wild Being in The Visible and the Invisible.
John S.
Hans talks about it as the nature of "Play" in The Play of the
World (Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press, 1981). Deleuze
and
Guattari call it the "Rhizome" in Anti-Oedipus (Minneapolis :
University of Minnesota Press, c1983) and Thousand Plateaus
(London :
Athlone Press, 1988, c1987). It is what Cornelius Castoriadis in The
World
in Fragments (Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1997)
calls the
"magma".
[52] This paragraph is attempting
to describe the following configuration of emergent levels:
doxa
Pure Being
paradox
Process Being
vicious circles
Hyper Being
absurdity
Wild Being
Madness, insanity
[53] A basis for the combination
of the four "Vajra Logics" has already been created by August Stern
in his books Matrix Logic (Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland
; New
York, N.Y., U.S.A., 1988) and Matrix Logic and the Mind
(Amsterdam ; New
York : North-Holland/Elsevier ; New York, 1992). The difference is that
Stern
has not yet realized that all the aspects of Being need to be
considered valences
of the logic, not just truth and falsehood: i.e. identity/difference,
real/illusory and presence/absence. A combination of "Vajra Logics"
would merely be a matrix logic using all four valences. It is a natural
extension of "Diamond Logic" to the next higher meta-level.
[54] Ultimately this is based on
fate and arises from sources that in turn arise from a single root. In
general
we are talking here about the various levels of non-duals at the core
of the
Western worldview.
[55] I.e. out of the restricted
economy and into the general economy.
[57]
http://archonic.net/disab.html
You man also try http://dialog.net or
http://think.net
or http://archonic.net for
any of the
web related material.