Sun, May 27, 2007


(See also the posts on “Re-Cognizing Relation”
and “Relational Systems: Prolegomenon“)
Personal Experience is the Existence of Relational System,
which, By Presumption,
is the Essence of Existence (Nonexistence) beyond the Personal.
It is a matter of record that throughout history human-expressed Relational Systems (RS) are largely in and of a single explicit form, namely the Interrelation of Systems (SS). Recognizing that this form is incomplete, we have introduced the general presumption of the existence of four relational forms: The Interrelation of Systems (SS), the Interrelation of Systems and Relations (SR), the Interrelation of Relations (RR), and R(S)–NESS.
Logically, these four forms exhaust the number of possible categories
which can be obtained by combining
Systems and Relations through Relations.
The second two of these forms have no generally referenced explicit historical precedent and it is our creation and actualization of these forms which is the unique and radical departure point for a Relational (R)Evolution. Hence, Relational Systems is founded mainly on the experiential recognition of the essentiality of Relation, especially the Interrelation of Relations, a thesis which is in direct contrast to the historical and current emphasis on System, particularly on things and thingness.
Specific Notional Presumptions
of Subsumption
[or Distinction as per George Spencer-Brown ]
and Image
[or Sign as per Charles Sanders Peirce]
Invoking the notion of the presupposed existence of distinction (d), SdS’ or RdR’ (i.e. S or R “themselves” are distinguised from other S=S’ or R=R’), re-forms the Relational Systems Forms of SS, SR and RR specifically as SRS’, SRR’ and RR”R’.
Apparent Self-Relation
With the concepts of “self” and “other” being mutually implied, the forms of apparent self-relation, SRS or RR”R, are implicitly (i.e. subsumed by) re-formed as SRS’ or RR”R’ whenever a Relational System is subjected to distinction.

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.


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!
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post was written by:

- who has written 36 posts on ChaotiCosmos.

Contact the author

Leave a Reply