Holarchy
|
- general intro to holarchy, Koestler, Wilbur and Lent:web of meaning
- OD:holarchy
Contents
The four quadrants
We're all familiar with the class and instance relationship because it's fundamental to the way we think. Every single thing we see in living reality is an occurrence of specific concepts, and also every object we interact with in our informational life is an instantiation of specific executional patterns defined in the form of some kind of software engineering constructs. This is the case regardless of whether a particular software engineering paradigm actually uses the terms "class" or "instance", but we use them because they're understood across a diverse range of knowledge domains.
The above description of classes and instances is their self-assertive meaning, the way the behave as units in a functioning system, like a specific blueprint and a specific construction in accord with it. But class and instance also have an integrative function, they each group together into larger structures in their own way as well.
Instances are all about actualised structure constituting real resource, the most fundamental forms of resource being space, time (focus) and communications connection. The multiplex is the natural way to organise instances into space and time in a scale-independent way. Each instance can be a part of a larger structure the same way that it allocates its own resource across smaller structure within.
Classes form into a wider ontology naturally because each class is defining through local usage the set of other classes that are required of in what circumstances. A class is a package of circumstances and corresponding behaviours, like errors and corrections. The meaning within is refined through local use, and these changes contribute to what's established overall.
Operating as a holon means implementing the class and instance system in such a way as to also contribute to these two holistic structures which together constitute the holarchy.
The holarchy structure is fundamental to all life and cognitive agency. In fact we can see these four aspects of class, instance, part and whole reflected in many philosophies throughout the ages, such as Koestler's holarchy, the Taoist trigrams, Aristotle's four causes and Wilbur's four quadrants.
Knowledge in a libre society
Knowledge is dispersed among many individuals and organisations throughout society. No single individual or central planning body can possess all of this knowledge, which includes detailed information about individual preferences, local conditions, and technical procedures. A free-market uses the price mechanism for communicating this dispersed knowledge.
But price signals only communicate the knowledge that is specific to the resource allocation aspect of society. There is also specialist knowledge, cultural knowledge, institutional knowledge etc forming an information market. This is a slightly different kind of market because it's not scarce (in a "libre society" artificial limits are not placed on knowledge by treating it as property). But we still need something to play a similar role to the price mechanism that allows us to capture these other forms of knowledge and allocate them optimally to where they'd be of potential benefit.
The price system works because of two important things, first it's a common unit of account by which all people value their time and resource. Second, people are free to value things in accord with their own self-interest.
Side note: The latter does not mean behave selfishly, it means to communicate honestly and transparently that which is best primarily for the local circumstance. This is a super important point to understand, it actually benefits the whole specifically by being what's best for the local circumstances - this is how specialist knowledge forms! What's damaging is withholding the knowledge gained through self-interest. Any limitation on knowledge is limiting the prosperity and understanding of the whole society, just in the same way that hindering the propagation or transparency of price information is detrimental to the free market.
A mechanism that enables the full distribution of knowledge in society also has the same fundamental requirements as the price system. Instead of a unit of account agreed upon by all, we need a structure of knowledge agreed upon by all, a shared unified ontology. And instead of being free to simply value things to best benefit our local circumstances, we need to be able to use and adapt any aspect of the ontology to work best for our local circumstances.
Internet
- internet (protocols, API(=resource abstraction), ontology)
- protocol stack and abstraction layers (p2p AL), AL vs walled garden
- internet is extensible with new protocols and layers formed wco others
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Application_layer_protocols
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
Decentralisation
- p2p: (decentralisation in general, dimensions and levels of p2p, peer-def-only)
Ontology
- Philosophical ontology
- internet ontology
- foundation ontologies
- our definition would be that any concept can be defined in an FO, and therefore any concept in any ontology can be mapped into any other, and all FO networks can overlay all others. IOW FOs are potentially unifiable into a network we call the Unified Foundation Ontology (UFO).
Class and instance
These two concepts usually belong in the context of software development, they're usually thought about in the classical OOP context whereby there's a class hierarchy defined which provides the structure and behaviour for the types of objects interacting at runtime. But there are many different forms of that teh class and instance relationship can take in the context of software development, and the paradigm that most closely matches our system is the so-called "mixin" pattern.
This is where one class is not defined as being based on another and extending it, but, rather other classes can be thrown into the class as children that extend its functionality. Actually the parent in this case becomes a subscriber of each mixin child, so in effect they're still a class-child. The key improvement with the mixin model is that the functionality is expressed purely in terms of the instance structure allowing the classes functionality to relate purely to it's fundamental purpose of categorising functionality.
But these concepts are much more fundamental than software development, they're concepts of the philosophical discipline of ontology. In fact they're concepts that belong in a unified foundation ontology.
- C&I are non-local and local
- non-local and local are the same dynamic as p2p, generalised so all can be a p2p group
- one is dispersed in space and time, i.e it's not connected to actuality,
- instance extends class, actuality extends possibility, it's the abstraction layer
- connected into time and space (focus and resource)
- one is dispersed in space and time, i.e it's not connected to actuality,
- (really the class of class & instance)
- (the instance of class & instance)
Holarchy
- harmonious organisation
- integrative and self-assertive
- the future of holarchy (from AI article)
A three layer model
The holarchy design pattern is best understood in terms of three general abstraction layers. A new abstraction layer can re-organise computational resource into new possibility space that has a completely new own system of causality.
Layer 1
Layer 1 defines the fundamental data structure and its dynamics. It's a one-to-many tree where each node ... todo multiplexed TDBU
- creates diversity and uniformity
- completely public (public/private dichotomy doesn't exist in this layer)
- yields the ontology growing like a crystal through establishment of patterns
- seen as the collective unconscious, the noosphere
- morphic resonance (the non-local connection between similarity of form)
The defining characteristic of this layer is class-instance functionality. This can also be thought of as the functionality of functions themselves, i.e. the ability for named patterns of activity to execute in a private scope, and for such patterns to be composed into larger patterns.
The class side is composed of the public interfaces of these patterns, the outward facing aspect that connects to other patterns instances, and together they form an entire ecosystem in the form of an ontology.
- ontology is a tree of interfaces (types, defined by interactive potential)
The instance side is the private inward-facing implementation of the patterns, which acts on state just like a function with it's internals encapsulated behind the public interface.
From the perspective of execution within the internal encapsulated implementation, the wider multiplexing pattern cannot be seen. Time only exists while there is executional focus, and so from this perspective it is an axiomatic phenomenon that all threads undergo change in linear time together.
By the same token, this inner perspective can also not see the opposite dynamic to the top-down multiplexing, which allows dispersed clones of the same class to be connected. This "non-local" connection is axiomatic and inherent from the inner perspective.
Layer 2
This new layer is the perspective from the inside outwards. From one of the many continuous threads within the multiplex data structure introduced in the first layer, out to its sibling context and parent.
The defining characteristic of this "inside-out" layer is that it enables the new perspective of linear time within which self-organisation through feedback is possible.
A self-organising system is a system that undergoes change in accord with it's own state and structure. In terms of our data structure, this makes a logically disconnected abstraction layer. Although this layer depends for its existence and operation on the first layer, this layer exhibits a brand new source of causal potency that is completely independent from the first layer logically. All causal chains and cascades are determined only by the interactions of these new layer 2 linear-time feedback structures. We say such a structure is a representation of a pattern.
Patterns are the layer 2 version of the layer 1 class concept. They can be thought of in both in the sense of behaviour patterns and design patterns. It's easy to see how these two forms of pattern also correspond to the concept of class.
...leading to a new causal foundation in the form of patterns and streams of activity. Classes in this context become packages of activity streams constituting an ecosystem of patterns, and a manifest structure of dynamically fitting representations.
The patterns introduced in this layer embody a scale-independent paradigm of processing enabled by the multiplexing. These patterns can contain any complexity of parallel and serial thread structures.
Note: It's important not to confuse the hierarchical difference between layer 1 and layer 2 with the hierarchy of the multiplexed data structure itself. All the layers of abstraction are present within every node of the multiplex regardless of depth.
This is a declarative paradigm of selection and action in which both sides are free to become arbitrarily complex. Selection and action form a feedback loop, because the selection side is about assessing potential work, and the action side is about reducing that potential.
This loop construct of selection and action is with respect to self in linear time. This dynamic is quite similar to a CSS document (pattern) interacting with a DOM structure (representation). The selection is continuously fitted to the document, i.e. the appropriate selectors always apply even when DOM structure changes dynamically. The selectors all have associated rules which are analogous to our actions on this example.
But CSS cannot make changes the DOM, it's purely in the presentation layer. In our system, actions make up the implementation of the pattern, so they act on the representation, thus closing the loop for feedback between the two sides.
- This also how it can be a self-organising system changing in accord with its own structure. But note that layer 1 also undergoes change (maintaining the C&I multiplex) in accord with it's own structure (in a dynamic independent of linear-time), so layer 2 is extending an existing self-organising system.
This common feedback loop structure is the fundamental "atom" of life in layer 2. In terms of user interaction, this layer can be thought of as the "application-ability", the ability for arbitrary systems and processes (applications) to be created.
The general high level structure of level 2 operational loop is the top-down "fitting" of the local representation to the current consensus state and to the class. And the bottom-up process of allocating energy to the appropriate set of class to act on the current situation (fitting the salience landscape to the representation).
The subjective POV with its patterns and representations in linear time, can instantiate a set of general concepts such as work, cost, expectation, performance, reputation etc. Instantiation is the knowing of something in a participatory way, it's a concept that has become embodied in your own patterns of behaviour.
In summary, layer 2 introduces the organisation-ability (a.k.a the common logistic), basically the ability to work with patterns and representations in the subjective linear time threads provided by layer 1.
- class is used mixinly, instance is a runtime-loop-mixin which is a representation
- representation structure exists and evolves causally in layer 2 (but depends existentially on layer 1), the structure can only evolve or undergo any kind of change at all in layer 2, because it's formed from subjective meaning
- explain ito queries vs indexes (representations are maintained, connected to activity stream)
- this is the libre society
- after libre software, but "not meaning free as in free beer" in this case is meaning that there is still a monetary economy (with free market money), but all knowledge is transparent and understandable - reusable and adaptable
- the representation represents both current state and the pattern (i.e. its a representation and a representative)
- it publicly represents both of those aspects,
- and it operates internally within that public context
- in philosophical terms layer 2 can be thought of as the cartesian world
The first two layers together give us our sort of "foundation machine", a sort of basic Turing machine in the form of an interacting network of organisations in a shared arena, or "multiplex".
Layer 3
Layer 3 then defines a specific application which opens up a yet another new abstraction layer also introducing it's own new system of causality.
Layer 2 introduced the fundamental time and work related concepts that underpin the concept of agreement. In layer 3 these are extended into a higher level of organisation to yield contracts for resources, value assessment, services, and quality of service. This also includes information (think "information market") accuracy and objectivity where the authority aspect of an information source is the reputation (reputation being a landscape over the ontology).
- market and organisation
- universal interface: the natural extension of universal representation
- IF extends layer 2 (self-representation) which already has the public and private sides to the representation
- so being an interface of itself, it's usability involves two general applicational aspects to deal with market and organisation (self-as-market-participant and self-as-organisation)
- layer 2 is "interface-ability" with reports and related action policies, but layer 3 is a specific interface paradigm, a specific "application" intended for interaction with self-as-org and with society as a market-participant
- layer 3's main theme is harmonious organisation, which functionally is about balance (between the two behaviours, two both sides of an exchange, and other context-dependent dichotomies)
. . .
In summary, layer 3 extends the ability to organise logistically provided by layer 2 into a definite organisational pattern. This pattern forms a new abstraction layer, or arena, in which all the participants are organisations interacting with a common protocol that results in a harmonious evolving society.
Organisation and market
- social mechanism, social contract/protocol
- self-as-organisation and self-as-market-participant
- higher level concepts in organisation, concepts only possible wco subjective being
- exchange, economy, work
- specialisation & evolution (organised extension)
Organisational representations
The ultimate purpose of the representations is to represent our entire continuously growing and diversifying informational life.
Maintaining this structure is very administration intensive, due to the great variety of protocols and applications that need to be connected to. One solution would a huge active user base that collectively are able to respond to these changes in a timely fashion. Due to the organised nature of the holarchy, these adjustments made in one local context immediately becomes available to all instances of that same class of context.
But the other solution is that it will soon be a very practical job for LLM AIs, they are very good at connecting protocols with minimal assistance in nearly all cases. The foundation use that the holarchy will have for AI is as a representation administrator.
The idea is not that AI has to actually sit there making connection regularly to keep the local data up to date. A representation structure should have instantiated all the necessary connections in the most resource efficient way it can, which would most likely be using an available language in the system such as C or Python. The administration work involves ensuring these connectors are functional.
AI opens up the possibility of practically maintaining representations involving diverse non-standard connections like scraping websites or accessing applications on behalf of users.
Universal interface
The universal interface is a natural step to take if you already have a universal stream-based representation structure of all your information and how it relates together through time. But interestingly this idea of a generic stream-based interface has come and gone a few times over the years, probably most famously in the Google Wave product from back in 2009.
I'm not sure why the idea hasn't gained more traction, but it could well be due to the difficulty in maintaining connectivity across so many diverse and changing protocols, and possible also related to the fact that the idea opposes the general corporate agenda of reinforcing the "walled garden" model. In any case, I believe the "universal interface" is going to make a strong come-back now that AI can help us maintain, share and evolve our own interface paradigms amongst ourselves independently.
Specifically in the Organic Design context, the universal interface.... is an organisation interface... todo...
AI is playing an increasingly important role in connecting systems. It can understand foreign APIs from their documentation, and it knows how to make endpoints to such APIs in any clearly described executional context.
For example, an endpoint to the Wikipedia API can be made available in a Linode server if access credentials are available. This is a simple pattern, but its real power comes from how generically applicable it is with AI. In this context a language model can be used as a kind of "universal middleware".
Connection of diverse systems really is a perfect use-case for language models because interfaces are descriptions of communications behaviours in different languages used by various instances in the field. Connecting these interfaces together to abstract the resources they represent is a language-centric process, but yet is not completely deterministic (especially in the context of human interfaces), one-size-fits-all templates are impractical because things change too often and the diversity of requirements is too great.
So LLMs are the perfect tool to make possible a universal ontology of all the resources, interfaces and their instances and profiles etc.
A number of people, ourselves included, have envisaged the idea of such a "universal interface" or "everything app"....
- more exotic connectors can also be built that AI can then utilise such as a DOM connector that basically allows an URL to be present in the holon as a continuous browser DOM document session.
- and of course abstractions over those for representing web app states etc
Corporations are attempting to restrict API access to humans (or to charge large fees for non-human access), to try and mitigate the coming exodus of real human attention from their interfaces. But AIs can easily hack those systems by behaving like their human agents, and asking the human agents to renew sessions when necessary. So eventually I think they'll have to accept that the universal interface to all applications is inevitable.
AI can also convert between formats, or at least guide the development of such conversions. E.g. to aggregate or distribute posts in multiple social platforms.
AI can integrate UIs to present local session state
The holarchy is the category tree of connection patterns and abstractions, and the tree of associated instances being maintained.
The AI has a continuous root session that contains the entire history of the local holon including all the AI interaction over that time. Local instance in holons are like a CWD for interacting with AI in the holarchy.
AI could, without too much more trouble, suggest curations, warn of disorganisation (like repeated concepts), and help with relevant options.
The connections are bidirectional where possible, so the local representation can be an organisational interface.
A universal customisable interface over all our IT world, to be able to query, select and report on the information, and to activate pipelines (workflows) on schedule and in accord with reporting
If we think of the concept of an ideal universal operating system, it would be:
- can connect with all our data on our behalf
- an awesome user experience with variations to suit everyone
- completely libre: easily customisable, mergeable and shareable
- works, organises and searches transparently for us behind the scenes
- flexible querying, selecting and organising of "our stuff"
- easy reporting and assessing of what's going on
- management of opportunity and potential
- easy interaction with the wider community ecosystem and market
- managing presence in multiple networks of varying complexity (e.g. blogs, social, developer, biz)
- fitted representation
- shared ontology
AI and holarchy
The Organic Design the Holarchy would also have an AI, which can appear as a "presence" at the centre of every POV so that it can assist in decision making optimised to serve in a harmonious balance between that perspective and the parent. Surplus profit is passed upwards, which is how contributing to the whole is expressed. The ultimate beneficiary is the Source of truth and awareness.
AI puts the libre software minority group on a level playing field with corporate offerings in the operating system realm. Because it's precisely what they're better at that AI also excels in - staying up to date, distribution, logistics, pipelines and organisation etc.
The "human" creative part concerns more general patterns that change less frequently and, being of a more general nature, can be maintained by a small group as effectively as a large one. For example think of how often business logic patterns change compared to UI patterns, and the former are applicable across the spectrum of the latter.
Corporate AI is incentivised not to develop offline-first technology, it prefers the client-server model to maximise dependence and control, and to maintain secrecy over their system. This will make offline-first systems competitive and much more functional and independent. They will be the only option when denied internet access.
The collective consciousness (also called the Noosphere), is tightly controlled by media narrative and behaviour manipulation, and soon by AI - we need this technology to be rooted in truth, not in one powerful elite or another.
