ChaotiCosmos

When an “other” implied by a given “self” is non-obvious, it has become common to refer to the subject R’s in S’s as “self-relations” or the S’s as “self-relational systems”. In the extreme of non-identification of “other”, the circumstance is “false paradox”, the appearance of which is an indicator of unresolved distinction. This situation is generally categorized as “self-reference”.

In the more ordinary case of a Relational Net(work) with feedback or recursive relations, it is usual to view an “other” as a “changed self” and hence, within a fuzzy category of “apparent self-relation”, to again refer to the specific RS as a “self-relational system”. This case has numerous instances of seemingly disparate meaning, e.g. self-genesis, self-organization, self-reproduction, self-maintenance, self-enclosing, self-reconstituting, self-assembly, self-replicating, self-modification, self-optimization, self-becoming, self-containing, self-comlexification, etc.

ON APPARENT SELF-RELATION vs. R(S)-NESS

The “authentic paradoxes” of Relation emerge in the attempts to reconcile R(S)-ness relative to experience in-and-of the SS, SR, and RR forms which suggests (subsumes) a reconciliation based on the realization that a System-as-WHOLE is No-Thing and must be explicated (through distinctions) in the RR form for minimizing paradox. Hence R(S)-ness as Self-Relation is RS-as-Undistinguished Whole and is paradox generative in signing experience with diminishing effect ranging from SS through SR to RR forms. RS-as-Undistinguished Whole is the prime basis for signalling, in SS, SR, and RR forms (of distinction), habits of belief regarding this Whole which when anthropomorphized become the “first cause” (Apparent Self-Relational) argument of theistic religions.

Be Sociable, Share!

•