Waves and connectives have features in common: They interfere or integrate with each other in the same space rather than exclude each other when they meet. They enjoy a freedom to move or change (that is complete if they are uncontained) and enjoy an absolute smoothness of flow. They are vaguely distinguishable rather than definitively separated from each other (unless they are in separate containers) and are not able to exercise control. These features characterize the mode of interaction and spatial arrangement I call connectivity.

Bonds and embraces too have features in common: The motions of their constituent objects are always constrained, they can maintain a lasting stasis, they can maintain lasting and unique identities, they exclude each other and separate when they meet, they can be defined and categorized with precision, they process in discrete steps rather than flow smoothly, they can aggregate into new objects, they can be disrupted, they display fixed hierarchies of rank and control, they can exercise precise control and can contest for hierarchical authority. These features characterize the mode of interaction and spatial arrangement I call architectivity.

Connectivity and architectivity have no features in common.

Architective interactions yield only to stronger relevant external interactions, after which they are no more. Connective interactions yield to all relevant external interactions, after which they continue.

In the interest of brevity, from here on I will use the term 'interaction' to refer to both interactions and spatial arrangements.

Physical Examples of Connectivity and Architectivity

Physical objects interact architectively, for example, when subatomic objects aggregate into atoms, atoms into molecules and molecules eventually into rocky planets. Physical objects interact connectively, for example, as gasses or liquids such as in clouds, streams, oceans and atmospheres.

Disturbances may propagate through gasses and liquids (and through sublimated solids) as do waves of sound. Disturbances can be muted or stopped by suitably sized or shaped aggregates, as we shelter in protective architective shells to escape the ravages of atmospheric storms.

Interactions between stars and planets are connective. Although planets move in well-defined orbits around their suns, their orbits are not locked in constraints in the way that electrons and protons are locked in an atom. The planets and our sun freely affect each others' orbits in a connective. Uranus and Neptune are thought to have formed in orbits much closer to the sun and to have slowly migrated outward over millions of years.

In stars and between them, plasmas of protons and electrons flow freely in connective interaction, with waves of disturbance propagating through them (as seen in the auroras at Earth's poles).

Gaseous planets such as Saturn and Jupiter display no architective behaviour at scales above the molecular, while Mars and Earth display architective behaviour at a planetary scale because they have planetary crusts.

Fire as a chemical process is architective while the gasses and fine particles in its flames and smoke dance connectively.

Heat offers a good example of sublimation. A shipping container may offer protection from wind, rain and light, but unless it is well insulated it cannot prevent the temperature inside the container being affected by the temperature outside, as the molecules of the outside air vibrating with heat sublimate the container to act on its constituent molecules (which then warm the interior of the container) rather than acting on the container as a whole.

An apple falls connectively but its landing on the ground is architective. If it lands on a rock, the force of the impact is less than the binding strength of the rock so the rock does not break, but the apple may not be so strong and the apple is disrupted. If it lands on a bed of sand, the figurate strength among the sand grains may give way before the cells of the apple do and so the figurate arrangement of the sand processes before the apple can bruise.

Trees and grass waving in the wind, and kelp waving with the ocean currents, have sufficient flexibility for their leaves to vibrate connectively, while their roots are architectively anchored to the ground.

Floating boats and fish are in connective interaction with the water molecules of their host oceans, as are balloons, birds and aeroplanes with the molecules of the air. An anchor thrown by a boat establishes an architective embrace between the anchor and the earth, but it is not until the boat is so firmly tied up that it cannot move (say tied to a quay or in a dry dock) that the boat itself has established an architective embrace with the earth.

A ball on smooth ground is in contact with the ground, but is not in an embrace with it since it is free to bounce, roll and move. A shoe on the ground is in an embrace with it if it is not free to slide. When walking or running we put one foot in front of the other, processing from one embrace with the earth to another.

Stone, scissors, paper is a figurate, architective game.

Waves are highly susceptible to disturbance. For sound waves to maintain a pure note they must have been architectively controlled at some point (such as by the bridge of a guitar) or have passed through an architective filter. The wave displaying the pure note is connective nonetheless, for its frequency can be changed by encounters with other waves and objects, say by passing through different media or by a Doppler effect (as a sound is different when its source is moving towards or away from you).

Waves can carry information as they mimic the disturbances that caused them. Their information may be connectively encoded in their modulation as is done in AM and FM radio. But such information may be garbled by interference with other waves or by encounters with objects in the medium the waves traverse. The encoding of digital information (which is an architective sequence of 1's and 0's) is not disturbed when the carrier wave interferes with other waves or by encounters with objects. Architectures such as a computer hard-drive or a printed page offer a honeycomb of objects that are not disturbed by passing events or by aggregation with other objects. Architectures can store information reliably, and they can transport that information and copy it faithfully. As long as they are not disrupted, architectures can preserve information with absolute fidelity.

Functional Objects

Useful functionality can be built into objects by mixing architective and connective features. For example, the architective construction of a peg fitting into a hole can have a dash of connectivity added to it by making the peg and hole round so they can rotate freely.

Functional objects can be regarded as combinations of devices, simple or complex, architective or connective, with each device contributing one or more functional properties to it. For example, a device may contribute a capacity for motion as a functional property, or a capacity for rigidity, or a capacity for aggregation at its location in the construction.

Each device, and the overall construction itself, can be regarded as a functional object able to aggregate with other functional objects into more complex functional objects from which new functional properties emerge (and which in turn may aggregate with other functional objects).

Barriers, shells, membranes and containers are all architective devices and we can fill these with connective devices such as gasses and liquids (which may host waves inside them), to create extremely complex and useful functional objects.

The arrangement of the functional objects in a functional aggregate can be precisely mapped to describe its functional hierarchy. Functional objects are architective phenomena. They may or may not incorporate connective devices but they cannot be constructed using connective devices alone.

It may happen that a complex functional object is able to operate as a coherent and self-sustaining mechanism. Self-sustaining objects may in turn aggregate with others to become even more complex, and so on. For example, an air conditioning unit is a coherent, self-sustaining functional object, which may be incorporated into (and so aggregate with) a motor car - itself a complex functional object utilizing other complex functional objects such as a combustion engine. (And note how an air conditioning unit and a combustion engine incorporate connective devices such as expanding gasses.)

The human body is a wonderful example of a complex functional object that is coherent and able to sustain itself. And through the combination of its many functional devices it is able to move with the connective grace of a dancer even though it is structurally architective.

Connectivity and Architectivity in Biology

While connectivity and architectivity cannot be used to explain how or why living beings have come about or why they have developed autonomy, connectivity and architectivity are evident in all the interactions of living organisms.

Life as we know it is built on a platform of complex molecular chemistry. An outstanding feature of this chemistry is the way that carbon atoms can aggregate with each other in arbitrarily long chains, from which a great variety of complex organic molecules such as proteins can emerge. Proteins, in turn, can take a great variety of different shapes, and the effects that emerge from the embracing of their figures play a significant role in the metabolisms of living things.

Organic molecules may aggregate into rigid skeletons (architective) that give biological cells their shape, or into flexible membranes (architective) that separate cells from one another and contain their (connective) cytoplasms. Cells aggregate functionally into organs and organs aggregate functionally into organisms, even autonomous organisms such as ourselves.

An organism's bones or shell provide it with a rigid skeletal support (architective). Its blood cells (each a separate architective object) contain within them nutrients and energy and their connective flow distributes these through the organism via an architecture of veins and arteries. Eyes and ears sense (connective) vibrations in an organism's environment, nervous systems flow (connectively) and switch (architectively) to relay electrical information between organs, and endocrine systems relay protein hormones as architective messages using the blood's distribution function. Hearts, brains and lungs vibrate (connectively) to regulate the organism's subsystems, while the chemistry of switching molecular bonds turns food into energy for warmth and propulsion.

The bodies of biological organisms are complex functional objects that maintain their architectures in the face of disturbance. Their bodies, organs and cells can be disrupted by external forces that exceed their architective binding strengths, in which case the organism processes from one architecture to another (until it is no longer able to sustain itself).

Biological organisms store genetic information in the architecture of their DNA. They process by replicating their architectures and genetic information through mitosis and meiosis, one reconfiguration event at a time.

Each organism is a separate biological object, able to interact with other objects.

Organisms can interact connectively with their environment. Humans have organs that are sensitive to physical waves such as sound and light and we are sensitive to the physical vibrations of heat. We can also interact directly with our environment, perhaps by surfing an ocean wave or touching a purring cat.

We interact with our environment architectively too. We have organs sensitive to the chemical shifts of taste and smell. An embryo is figurately constrained within the body of its mother or inside an egg. We can be bodily constrained by a leash or by prison walls. We may be confined to living our lives in a particular country. Our limited lifespan confines our existence to a particular period in history. We are bodily distinct from each other and have distinct personal histories. We figurately fit shoes on our feet and hats on our heads. We clasp a pen between thumb and forefinger. Mammalian sexual organs are a perfect figurate match. Our physical figures decide which passages we can negotiate and what shapes would constitute a comfortable chair. We collide when our bodies meet. We may enter into contest with other organisms for our bodily resources (such as physical battles amongst ourselves or battles with bacteria attacking our bodies). Our bodies depend on their architective binding strengths for their survival.

Humans can intelligently employ connective and architective devices to manipulate their environments. We intentionally modulate our voices into connective harmonies or into architective words of information. We construct chairs and tables and shelters that suit our figures. We have configured languages to communicate exact data of information. We can architectively store that information in words and reproduce it exactly. We have constructed functional technologies that permit us to communicate using radio waves, to control the flow of rivers, synthesize new chemistries and build skyscrapers.

Orgasm can be both a profound connective experience and a defining moment in our reproductive procession as architective objects.

I see most of our somatic experiences to be connective vibrations in our brains responding to stimuli from our organs, whether these be connective or architective. For example I see both heat and cold as specific connective experiences, rather than cold being an absence of sensation since it is merely an absence of heat. In particular I see our experiences of bodily pleasure and pain as connective qualia in our nervous systems regardless of whether the original stimuli were connective or architective. We can, after all, be anaesthetized to all stimuli.

Examples of Social Connectivity and Architectivity

Connectivity and architectivity are evident in our social interactions as well.

We cannot choose or change our parents and family - we are bound to specific people for our entire lives by the circumstance of our birth. These bonds are disrupted only when we or they die. There is a fixed genealogical hierarchy in every family which processes in reconfiguration events - one birth or death at a time. Our family structures have all the hallmarks of architectivity.

We are also likely to enjoy the warmth and love of our family members, and they are likely to enjoy our acceptance and reciprocation of their love. These warm feelings may carry through to later life but they are not fixed - they may sour or become covered by layers of intrigue. This empathic aspect of family life I see as a connective behaviour - the feelings are inclusive of all whom we love and cannot be presumed to be constant. Nor does empathy (as I will use the word) recognize familial boundaries. As we grow up we relate empathically with non-family members, and will likely select a spouse on that basis.

Architective sociality is obvious: Families can aggregate into tribes and tribes into nations. We can be definitively identified and categorized by lineage or history, or by geographical location. Persons, families or tribes may also develop or inherit particular resources or skills to which they are associated and by which they are categorized, say as smiths, bakers or nurses; and which they may pass to their offspring.

Connective sociality is not quite so obvious: Empathic affinities may be fleeting and cannot be held to well-defined categories. Gossip and love are connective and beyond anyone's control. Yawning is contagious. Our movement in large numbers may display connective behaviour like herding, the flocking of birds, or the waves of decision running through a school of fish. And if bodily pain is a connective quale then compassion for bodily pain is a feature of empathic sociality.

An event experienced by a group may arouse an empathic affinity between its participants so that they display a group visage, but only a recorded description of the event or associating the event with an (architective) icon can give the group a well-defined identity.

Architective social groups can aggregate into a multi-faceted society such as a nation, having definite characteristics that make it different to other nations. Societies are hierarchically structured in a multitude of ways depending on how their members can be categorized, with those at the top of a hierarchy controlling those beneath them in respect to their activities within the hierarchy.

Societies constrain the behaviours of their members and act to preserve their hierarchies. They enforce the categorizations and definitions they have evolved. They architectively codify rules and roles into laws and traditions, violation of which could result in ostracism. These may intrude into the intimacy of personal life, and individual members are expected to play roles in their personal relations that are supportive of the traditions of the greater society.

A successful social hierarchy can crystallize into an institution, whereby all its offices persist independently of the empathies and idiosyncrasies of the people that hold them, as long as the officers conform to the defined roles of the institution's architecture. A well-founded institution may continue its existence long after its originating founders have disappeared, with faceless individuals entering the institution and performing the roles that have been codified as necessary for its maintenance. Institutions emerge as new social objects in their own right from the constrained social interactions of their offices.

At every level of social ranking, each social object has a unique and enduring identity, definable in terms such as family, tribe, class, profession, wealth or power, depending on the properties by which the social category or society is structured. Every single human can be uniquely identified by lineage alone.

Empathic relationship does not recognize the ranks of social hierarchies or the boundaries of nations. It does not recognize the existence of social architectures at all. Empathic affinity takes place between individual people and not between categories. When one group prefers association with another based on a commonality of interest, culture, or language - it is an architective association. While people may be averse to cross-boundary empathic affinity or not be willing to acknowledge it for fear of censure from their society, they cannot prevent it from happening.

In an institution there is no regard for empathic behaviour. Empathic content in the art and dance of an individual, for example, is replaced by iconography, procedure and ritual in an institution. It is also not uncommon for individuals to assume for themselves the identity of their institutional roles.

The traditions and laws of institutions and societies confirm the social identities of all their members from the very lowest to the very highest, as well as the identity of the institution or society itself. They are extremely conservative and resistant to change. Even if change becomes necessary for the survival of a society, it may be successfully resisted to the detriment of the society.

The constraining rules that a society imposes on individual members may conflict with their connective behaviours, perhaps to a point where individuals revolt and the society responds oppressively in order to preserve its architecture.

Contests may arise between different societies having different traditions or laws. Contests may arise within a society or for control of an institution. When a contest arises between individual people it is either within a social context (whereby individuals are fighting for a nation or religion for example) or over an exclusive architective resource, such as a garden fence or a limited food supply.

To the extent our society permits us to be individuals interacting connectively, it is liberal with benefit flowing throughout the society. To the extent the interactions of a society are constrained, it is autocratic, with benefit flowing to the top of its hierarchy.

Features of Architective Sociality

There are benefits and costs to architective sociality.

Individuals aggregating socially can increase their chances of winning and survival because the powers of an emergent social body as a whole may be greater than the sum of its members' individual powers.

The members of a society or institution would serve the greater offices above them and control the lesser offices below them. In return for their service they could appeal for assistance from its greater offices, while wielding the concerted obedience of lesser offices in their own causes. Even those at the bottom of a hierarchy could at least fly the flag of a power much greater than their own, while the office at the very top of a hierarchy has hierarchical authority over all the institution's members and can marshall the entire institution to its own benefit.

Individuals may be able to increase their power by climbing the ranks of their social hierarchy and by external contest. Though individuals may know their places within a society and dutifully hold their stations, the possibility of switching offices opens the society to internal contest as well.

Architective hierarchies act to preserve themselves, so a social architecture necessarily encourages a sense of self-preservation among all its social objects.

Social architectures would likely be dominated by strong members engaging in contest with others within their own hierarchies or in contest with external foes.

Different social bodies may have different binding strengths and some could be judged to be more robust than others. A primary motivation to join a particular social body would be to participate in one offering the best survival strength and the most powerful assistance.

The lower a member's position in an architective hierarchy, the more valuable is any leverage obtained from the benefice of a higher office, but there is also a greater number of authoritative offices to which the member must submit. As the member rises through the hierarchy, the value of the subservience due from those below rises, and the degree of submission to higher authorities decreases, so that when a member gets to the top of a hierarchy they are both all controlling within the hierarchy and not subject to any authority.

Because of the top-down hierarchical authority of an architecture, the subservience of inferiors can be taken for granted while invocations for intervention from superiors requires their consent. As well, the relative value of a member's self-service gets more pronounced as the member rises up the hierarchy since their success becomes less dependent on their subservience to superiors while the support of more inferiors can be taken for granted.

Dispensing power or control in the service of an inferior becomes less likely as a member rises in hierarchical rank since there is less likely to be benefit to themselves, and will not happen at all if there is a cost that could jeopardize their own position. It is more likely that a superior will sacrifice an inferior in the superior's interest, and do so with the inferior's consent since the superior's interest is in the greater interest of the society. The object at the top of a social hierarchy is able to indulge its self-interest without recrimination. For those not at the very top, life is necessarily problematical, and the degree to which it is problematical increases with distance from the top. The position at the very top of a social hierarchy is particularly privileged and desirable.

Architective sociality also offers respite from the uncontrollable environment of empathic engagement, by providing well-defined channels for empathy that can be more easily managed than the empathic relations themselves.

Previous Home NEXT