[FRIAM] 6 to 1, 12/2 to the other

[steve smith]

On 11/1/24 11:16 AM, glen wrote:
> I suppressed a reaction to "wuwei for code" in relation to anastomosis 
> before ... because believe it or not, I try not to be too negative. 
> 8^D But anastomosis is antithetical to wu wei. Anastomotic structures 
> are a result of violent forcing, a very slow explosion. I'm ignorant. 
> But as I understand it wu wei is more about going with the (mostly 
> laminar) flow, with some gentle nudging. They seem like complete 
> opposites. But what do i know?

I think this is a useful/interesting point...   my suggestion that this 
all relates to stationary action and Onsager relations is probably also 
contradicted by the "slow explosion" metaphor/analogy/model.     I think 
the "eruption of emergence" is a "slow explosion" (e.g. Cambrian 
Explosion)?  But as you point out, I'm not offering a demonstration or 
estimation of scale so this thought might "ought to be ignored".

Onsagers are defined on "near equilibrium" systems so OK...  very wuwei, 
not anastomosing.   And Lagrangian formulated stationary action might be 
totally irrelevant/tangential?

Your hermit crab and tree-of-liberty examples are (to me) good examples 
of exaptation based adaptation?

Thanks for the pointer to (non) distance-edged hypergraphs... they 
deserve a fresh mulling in this context.

Re hierarchies.  I share your belief (to whatever degree I understand 
you) that strict hierarchies are an abstraction, especially in the 
organization of the structure and dynamics of real world systems.   I am 
still entranced (ensorcled?) by the idea that the *evolution* of systems 
yields a constant (but not monotonic?) march into increased complexity 
with something like "levels" of abstraction being established?   As 
implied by your examples, the "exaptation" that occurs not only drives 
this complexity "forward" but perhaps also breaks the (strict) hierarchy 
sometimes?  Likely this is just me "over-reifying"...

Thanks also for the Frantz Fanon reference which sends me on other 
tangents which I will suppress (here) for the moment.   Your breadth of 
awareness of such things is always a treat.

- Steve

>
> In the context of the polity, by anastomosing an idealist slab poured 
> over the grass, I'm trying to channel something like Frantz Fanon ... 
> or maybe Jefferson's tree of liberty, blood of patriots majiggy. The 
> hermit crab doesn't gently go with the flow of acidification, warming, 
> and pollution. She stigmergically, forcibly, occupies the cracks that 
> exist in *all* ideologies, re-claims or newly claims parts of the 
> built environment for herself. Same with my new mushroom crop out in 
> the yard. They're not going with the flow. They're trying to forcibly 
> reclaim their territory from the stupid grass and fertilizer the last 
> owner paved them over with.
>
> This is similar to Trump's gaming of the NYC code. And it's why I 
> thought Gorard's non-distance edged hypergraphs in relation to 
> Sabine's distance-based edges were in context. She started her essay 
> saying that all graph-based representations of physics must be 
> discretizations and that all such discretizations fail. And ended it 
> by admitting that this discretization might work ... "life will find a 
> way" ... and physics proceeds one funeral at a time. Cheers to Sabine 
> for changing her mind, even if her bar is unreasonably high.
>
> And, yes, strict hierarchies are a myth, which is why I object so 
> strongly to the concept of levels. The closest we can really get is to 
> the decoupling approximations, where we demonstrate (we have to 
> demonstrate it) that when we ignore some fine-grained process, that 
> ignorance has a small impact on the larger *scope*. If you don't 
> demonstrate it or if you don't explicitly address the size of the 
> impact, we can/should ignore what you've said.
>
> On 11/1/24 08:56, steve smith wrote:
>> I love it when Glen (or anyone) introduces new terms which offer 
>> nuanced alternatives to the more simple/obvious/direct/blunt terms.  
>> i.e. Anastamosis vs 
>> Resectioning/Bypassing/Self-Healing/Network-Refactoring/Adaptivity?
>>
>> I think this is the ideation behind my questions about the emergent 
>> BRICS+ vs NATO+ structure/dynamics:
>>
>>     If we look at political structures, they too struggle with 
>> over-reification. Systems idealize permanence, but political reality 
>> reveals itself in shifting alliances, the ebb and flow of influence, 
>> and the redirection of resources in response to new pressures. As 
>> software structures grow in complexity, they parallel political and 
>> social constructs, often calcifying in ways that resist needed 
>> changes. In this context, anastomotic computing could offer a sort of 
>> “wuwei for code,” emphasizing responsiveness and transience over 
>> rigid structure, letting code act in harmony with shifting needs 
>> rather than forcing it into premature stasis.
>>
>> I can't help but believe that this over-reification is part of the 
>> ever-active wheel of evolution...   the "over" reification is 
>> relative to the parts/subsystems of the emerging "system" but this 
>> stasis is what provides the stability for the higher level (more 
>> aggregate?) system to now explore a whole qualitatively new suite of 
>> "adjacent possible affordances".
>>
>> I don't know if Glen is parsing this as convoluted word-salad 
>> nonsense but if there were one implication I hope he weighs in on or 
>> elaborates it is cryptic references to "levels" in the past which *I* 
>> was only able to catch the gist of but suspect is relevant to my 
>> hypo-thesis above?
>>
>> Tx to SG for (re?)introducing wuwei, have we discussed here (or only 
>> over tequila at TVM) the Wuwei vs Stationary Action?  Are the ebb and 
>> flow of money and power and commodities among the NATO+/BRICS+ 
>> superorganisms describable as Onsager relations? Are our global 
>> geopolitical-economics a near-equilibrium system (before the Nukes 
>> actually fly?).
>>
>> On 11/1/24 3:32 AM, Santafe wrote:
>>
>> I have to say, that qualifies as art.
>>
>>> The idealists will never stop idealizing and then reifying their 
>>> ideal. To Engineer is Human. But those of us who know (or merely 
>>> confidently believe) reality is made up of a diverse non-wellfounded 
>>> set of ... what? ... urges? ... nano-agents? ... IDK, whatever, will 
>>> always anastomose that built environment ... or at least reclaim it 
>>> like a hermit crab squatting in a tin can.
>>>
>>>   I like the visual and deeper concept, Glen. A kind of wuwei attitude.
>>>
>>> sequeing impermanence of political structures to over-reified software:
>>>
>>> Today at lunch, John Zingale lamented that the residence time of 
>>> code in the system seems to be decreasing. Perhaps Anastomotic 
>>> Computing is the next big thing.
>>
>
>