Physical Spirituality: "Online Reader"

The connective and architective modes of interaction have no features in common. The examples of serial meaning demonstrate that the connective and architective modes of serial meaning also have no serial meanings in common.

Every phenomenon, physical, biological or social, displays the features of connectivity and/or architectivity, so every phenomenon has serial meaning.

Just as compound interactions can be analyzed into component interactions that are either connective or architective, so too compound phenomena can analyzed into connective or architective units employing serial meanings of one mode or the other. For example, a rocky planet has a connective unit by virtue of the connective serial meanings in its relationships with its sun and other planets, and an architective unit by virtue of the architective serial meanings in its relationships with its constituting continents and rocks. Each unit may involve multiple serial meanings of its mode while some phenomena will comprise only one unit.

Different phenomena or units can display the same serial meanings, as for example those involving water and those involving air can display the serial meaning of unlimited flexibility, but units of different modes share no serial meanings. A birdbath's bowl at the top of its post continues the post's display of rigidity, for example, but that serial meaning is not available to the (liquid) water filling the bath. And when units occur sequentially in a phenomenon, the phenomenon's mode of serial meaning is interrupted at junctions between units of different modes.

Another consequence of the modes of serial meaning having no serial meanings in common is that serial meanings of one mode are meaningless in the context of the other, indeed not even recognizable as having meaning. To a (connective) wave or flood of water, for example, the (architective) distinction between a chair and a table that it sweeps along is lost.

As opposed to their serial meanings, the interactions in one mode can be relevant to interactions in the other, especially within a compound phenomenon. For example, a table swept along in a flood may well get hooked (architectively) to objects protruding from the riverbank and thereby alter the (connective) flow of the water, but why or how the table got hooked would be meaningless from the point of view of the water (since water can never get hooked).

Expressions of Serial Meaning and Their Emergence

I use the term serial expression to denote the way a phenomenon utilizes or presents a serial meaning. For example, a table getting hooked on a riverbank utilizes the same serial meaning of rigidity as the chair supporting me, but their expressions of that serial meaning are very different. Serial meanings can be expressed in different ways in different circumstances.

An object emerging from an aggregation will have emergent properties of its own and occupy a hierarchical level different to that of its constituent objects, so its emergence will be accompanied by new expressions of serial meaning. New serial expressions emerge with each emerging object.

Objects emerging from aggregation may display serial expressions of either mode. A carbon dioxide molecule emerging from a bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms, for example, may engage connectively in a gas with other carbon dioxide molecules or it could bond architectively with the other carbon dioxide molecules into crystals of dry ice if the temperature was low enough.

Different serial expressions could be found at each level of an architecture (since objects at different levels occupy different hierarchical capacities and have properties of their own). An architecture's expressions of serial meaning would be layered in the same hierarchical levels as its levels of aggregation.

It is important to note that serial expressions emerging as a result of an aggregation do not emerge from the serial expressions in the level below but from the emergent properties and hierarchical status of the emerging objects. The serial expressions in higher levels of an architecture are independent of the serial expressions in the levels below - but not of the objects and interactions in those levels.

New serial expressions can emerge in purely connective contexts too - that is, without any aggregation taking place. In this case the new serial expressions do emerge from existing serial expressions but can only be connective. We see this in Moire fringes for example, we see this when light generates additional patterns as it reflects off water waves at different angles, or when radio waves transmit different programs presenting different serial expressions. In connective contexts, new serial expressions are overlays on existing connective expressions. Emerging serial expressions in connective contexts are also layered in levels, but they and their levels are as ephemeral as the expressions they emerged from.

Fields of Expression

Each new level of expression might deliver a number of expressions. As new architective levels emerge, new connective expressions may also emerge, but new levels in connective contexts will have connective expressions only.

A number of emerging expressions of the same mode may correlate with each other to enable a field of expression, offering more intricate patterns and more elaborate games by virtue of the expressions' interrelation. New fields of expression often emerge along with emerging levels of expression. (There can be no correlation among expressions of different modes since the expressions are meaningless to each other, so the expressions enabling a field are all of the same mode.)

As atoms emerge from nuclear aggregations, for example, so the field of chemistry becomes available to them, which was not available to their component nucleons. Atoms can aggregate chemically in different ways to form different kinds of molecules, while the atoms' component nucleons - their protons, neutrons and electrons - had only the sub-atomic (non chemical) fields of expression to play in, which do not allow for the formation of molecules. Biology with its many fields of expression emerges in turn from the aggregations of different kinds of molecules, accompanied by connective expressions such as molecular vibrations, inter-molecular electrical activity and blood flow. 3D vision and its fields emerge from the biology of eyes and brains, while art and its playful fields emerge from vision, and so on. Art has different fields of expression to those of vision, while vision has different fields of expression to those of biology, and so on.

The accumulation of fields of expression may follow different paths in the development of different phenomena as new and diverse fields emerge. Nowhere is this more evident than in the diversity of biological life-forms, with each life form, comparing say animals and plants, having acquired different fields of expression as it developed from a different genomic starting point. Different species within each life form would also play in different fields of expression, while every individual organism likely has its own niche fields. Different societies too would offer different fields of expression for their adherents to play in. One might say that a person's "perceived reality" (as opposed to our shared or objective reality) comprises the fields of expression the person has acquired over their lifetime.

Different serial expressions can be found at each level of an architecture so the fields of expression at each level of an architecture are not necessarily accessible to other levels. As a conscious human I will be ignorant of the fields my own blood cells play in - and vice versa - while as a participant in a society I may not be able to participate in fields available to other strata of my society.

Narratives of Serial Expression

A serial expression can exhibit a continuity (temporal or spatial) from one phenomenon to another or from one unit of a compound phenomenon to another.

In compound phenomena this can happen when adjoining units are of the same mode (as in the case of the bird bath's post and bowl). It can also happen when the adjoining units are not of the same mode but a mode has resumed after being interrupted - expressions of that mode might simply pick up from where they left off since in their own context nothing meaningful happened during their interruption. The bird bath's post for example continues its support to a leaf floating on the bath's water. More so, an interrupted expression could resume completely seamlessly - as if there had been no interruption at all - again because in the context of its own mode nothing meaningful happened during the interruption.

When a serial expression continues from one phenomenon or unit to another I call it a narrative of serial expression.

Of course a disjunct could arise after an interruption so that the resumption isn't seamless, or events could occur during an interruption to prevent an expression's resumption. When an expression is unable to resume I say that its narrative terminates.

A disjunct or event preventing a narrative's resumption occurring during an interruption would be inexplicable in the narrative's own mode, so the disjunct or termination would appear to be random, as having occurred without reason. (Supported it may be, but why is the leaf wobbling?) A disjunct or terminating event occurring while in the narrative's own mode would not be so mystifying.

A phenomenon may have a number of continuing serial expressions and so be running a number of narratives. A compound phenomenon will likely have narratives running in both modes and skip between them as it skips between modes, while the narratives in each mode will be meaningless - not even recognizable as being narratives - in the context of their opposite mode.

A narrative runs for as long as there is continuity to an expression from one phenomenon or unit to another, but that does not preclude the expression changing as it traverses each phenomenon or unit. An expression may change within a unit and still have a continuity with what follows.

Narratives tell the stories of serial expressions as they proceed through successive phenomena or units of the same mode, temporally or spatially, likely evolving as they go.

The Organization of Architective Expressions and Their Narratives

Though the fields of expression in art emerge from 3D vision and the fields in vision emerge from the biology of eyes, it is the art that directs the eye to the picture.

The higher level serial expressions in an architecture are not derived from their lower level expressions but from the emergent capacities and hierarchical status of the objects in the higher level. Higher level expressions and narratives in an architecture are thus completely independent of the expressions and narratives in their lower levels - but not of the objects and interactions in the lower levels.

A conflict would arise if a narrative in one level of an architecture developed contrary to a narrative or expression in another. One's personal expressions for example may develop to be at odds with those of one's group or society. In such cases expressions and narratives at a higher level could govern those in their lower levels with no threat to themselves as long as the lower level objects and their interactions remained, while lower level expressions could not govern those in their upper levels without threatening the integrity of the entire architecture. For if lower level expressions were to govern those above, conflicting expressions amid the many lower levels all being expressed above would result in chaos; while expressions at the singular top level of an architecture could govern those in all the levels below, maintain their own integrity and ensure a consistency of expression and narrative throughout the architecture.

The higher level expressions and narratives in an architecture thus enjoy a priority over those in their lower levels. In this way lower level expressions and narratives in an architecture have a dependence on the expressions and narratives in their higher levels. I say that expressions and narratives at higher levels of an architecture are able to organize those in their lower levels, constraining them where necessary to preserve their own integrity.

Societies emerge from the aggregations of people but the expressions and narratives at a social level can organize those at a personal level. As long as a society persists, the expressions at the social level will govern the expressions at the personal level so as to avoid contradicting the social level expressions, even if it means some personal level expressions are compromised. It does not work the other way around: Personal expressions cannot compromise social expressions. This does not mean that all personal behaviour is socially dictated, only that personal expressions may not transgress what is acceptable at the social level.

Expression and narrative of serial meaning in an architecture is thus layered in levels of organization in the same way that the architecture's objects are layered in levels of aggregation and control. Both control and organization in an architecture occur in a top down direction. The higher aggregational levels control the lower aggregational levels while the higher narrative levels organize the lower narrative levels. The lower levels objects may have created the higher levels objects but the lower levels neither control the higher levels nor organize their serial expressions. Like control, organization occurs between levels of an architecture.

Organization differs from control in an architecture in that the termination of a narrative at a lower level need not affect a narrative at a higher level, while disruption of objects in a lower level will disrupt objects above them. Contrarily, termination of a higher level narrative would very likely affect lower level narratives, while disruption of a higher level object does not necessitate disruptions in the levels below.

Organization affects the lower level expressions and narratives in an architecture but does not affect the lower level objects or their interactions.

In connective contexts higher level expressions and narratives are dependent on those in the levels below. Here priority rests with the lowest levels of expression and narrative but it is substantive rather than organizational. If a lower level expression disappeared so would all those above it.

Nor do higher level expressions and narratives in connective contexts organize those in their lower levels. No lower level expressions or narratives are compromised by the presence of higher level expressions in connective contexts. Emergent connective expressions overlay their lower levels without organizing them. Two radio programs broadcast at the same frequency will be garbled. It could be argued that the modulation of one wave by another of a different frequency so as to carry a signal is a connective organization of expression. However, such a modulated wave carries the expressions of all its contributing waves rather than having one expression compromise any other. Each contributing expression could subsequently be extracted from the modulated wave by using suitable filters, whereas once an architective expression has been organized by its higher levels some of its original expression cannot be recovered.

Expressions in a connective can however be organized if the connective is contained in an architecture and so be organized to the extent that its containing architecture is organized. The organization of expression and narrative is a feature of architective phenomena only. ^#12

In conjunction with their ability to code, store and copy information with fidelity, this capacity of architective phenomena to create higher levels having novel serial expressions that then organize their lower level expressions facilitates them developing into coherent, self-sustaining, self-organizing functional structures. Novel fields of both connective and architective serial expression spontaneously emerging in such self-sustaining, self-organizing functional structures could have allowed life to emerge from matter, not simply as a development of complexity, but as a consequence of the emergence of novel objects and serial expressions and the ability of architectures to organize their internal expressions.

Michael Polanyi's "Life's Irreducible Structure" ^#13 offers vivid examples of the hierarchical organization of expression.

Processional Narratives

It may happen, in fact is very likely, that as architectures step through a procession, the architectures at succeeding steps will be similar to the ones they have just replaced, allowing some expressions to continue in successive architectures while the architectures themselves do not. That is, at each step in a procession, some narratives of the resulting architecture continue narratives that were present in the preceding architecture despite the preceding architecture having been replaced. An architecture and its identity may be disrupted but some of its expressions may continue in the architecture that replaces it. In a dynasty, for example, narratives of the ruling family continue even though individual rulers have passed on. In a culture too, popular expressions and narratives persist and evolve through generations while the populace passes on.

In dynasties and cultures we see that continuing architective narratives also organize the architective narratives of their contributing architectures. Taken as wholes, I see dynasties and cultures displaying a narrative continuance and organizational capacity of their own. In this way, the narratives continuing through a procession of architectures, taken collectively, can be regarded to be an emergent architective phenomenon in its own right, having a narrative continuance and organizational capacity of its own. I call such a phenomenon a processional narrative and the individual continuing narratives the processional narrative's themes. These may evolve, architecture by architecture, as the underlying architectures are replaced.

Though a processional narrative can be regarded as an architective phenomenon in its own right, it is not an object. Not being an object, it has no lasting identity (as I have defined it), cannot engage in interaction (as I have defined it) nor aggregate or exercise control, but it can organize the expressions of its contributing architectures to its themes. Not being an object, it cannot be disrupted but being a collection of narratives, they and ultimately it can be terminated. An object, such as a name or an icon, may be associated with a processional narrative, and that object could have an identity.

A processional narrative functions as a superordinate atop all its processing architectures, with its architective themes able to organize the architective narratives of its contributing architectures but not able to control them or their internal objects.

When a processional narrative is present atop a functional organism I say that the organism is a processional organism. We are such processional organisms since we maintain our functional architecture even though the cells of which we are constituted die and are replenished.

Though the topmost level of each architecture in a procession is at the apex of control in its own architecture it is not at the apex of that architecture's organization, for its expressions may yet be organized by a processional narrative. Conversely, though a processional narrative may be at the apex of organization of all its contributing architectures, it does not control any of them.

For a processional narrative to persist, it would probably require that the architectures making up the steps in its procession have similar if not the same properties and fields of expression - that their differences are minor - but if the procession involves many steps the final architecture may be very different to the original. An old man holds little resemblance to the baby he once was.

Processional narratives may also have a lateral dimension, in that the processing architectures may branch multilaterally at each step. For example, a parent may have many children continuing their themes. Each child may then have many children. As the child architectures proliferate, the themes extend in multiple directions, each evolving slightly differently but each instantiation continuing the parent's themes in some way.

It could be argued that a spore traveling through space and seeding on another planet (as proposed in ideas such as panspermia) would continue an architective narrative well beyond the architective limits of its originating planet, but this again only pushes the boundary of architective isolation further out without eliminating it, since there would ultimately be a limit to how far an object could travel (given the Einstein speed limitation) and the time a spore can remain viable.

Interactions and Serial Meanings

Architective interactions have features like the creation and disruption of objects, emergence of new and different objects, changes in discrete steps, and hierarchical control; while connective interactions have features like a susceptibility to change, integration, emergence of visages, smooth movement, the hosting of waves and vibration, and superposition.

Serial meanings on the other hand, whether connective or architective, have features like expressions, fields and narratives, which in architectures can be organized and themed across processing architectures.

Every actual architecture has a finite size. There is a spatial limit greater than which aggregation is not possible. A consequence of this is that there is an upper limit to the possible levels of expression and narrative in an architecture. In purely connective contexts there is no upper limit to the possible levels of expression and narrative.