If Post 3 traced the topologies of potential in language, physics, and biology, the question now becomes practical: how might the system network itself — SFL’s canonical model of potential — be adapted to other domains? This is not a matter of metaphor or analogy; it is a matter of mapping the relational logic of structured potential onto different topologies, preserving its ability to model perspectival actualisation.
1. Core elements of the system network
To generalise, we first identify what makes the network powerful:
-
Nodes – loci of relational stability, representing regions of potential that are internally coherent.
-
Pathways – relational differentiations along which potential can actualise.
-
Entry conditions/context – constraints that determine which cuts through the network are permissible in a given instance.
-
Terminal points – maximal construals, where potential is fully aligned with the chosen path.
This architecture is domain-agnostic: it formalises how potential differentiates relationally, rather than what it differentiates.
2. Mapping onto physics
In physics, potential is continuous and dynamical. The network can be reinterpreted as follows:
-
Nodes → regions of phase space or stable quantum states.
-
Pathways → lawful transformations or allowed transitions between states.
-
Entry conditions → initial conditions or boundary constraints that determine which pathways are accessible.
-
Terminal points → measurement outcomes or actualised events.
Here, the network models how energy, momentum, or other conserved quantities manifest through relational constraints. Choice corresponds not to conscious selection, but to the perspectival alignment imposed by measurement — a cut through the structured manifold of potential.
3. Mapping onto biology
In developmental biology, the field is multistable and self-organising:
-
Nodes → morphogenetic attractors or stable phenotypic configurations.
-
Pathways → developmental trajectories constrained by genetic and epigenetic fields.
-
Entry conditions → environmental and regulatory signals shaping differentiation.
-
Terminal points → fully realised forms (organisms, organs, tissues).
The network formalises how potential form aligns with local constraints, showing which actualisations are accessible at each stage. Construal here is realised as self-alignment within the morphogenetic field, analogous to choice in a linguistic network.
4. Mapping onto social systems
Social formations also exhibit structured potential: norms, roles, and interactions constrain what can be actualised. The network can be adapted as follows:
-
Nodes → normative or institutional configurations (e.g., roles, rules, expectations).
-
Pathways → patterns of social interaction or sequences of coordination.
-
Entry conditions → cultural, legal, or situational constraints.
-
Terminal points → enacted social events, decisions, or collective actions.
Here, the network captures how social potential is distributed and differentiated relationally, showing which forms of action or alignment are possible without presupposing any single “correct” outcome.
5. Principles for cross-domain adaptation
From these examples, several general principles emerge:
-
Relational logic is primary – the network’s power lies in mapping structured potential, not in modelling any particular material.
-
Topology must be domain-sensitive – nodes and pathways must reflect the actual relations of stability and differentiation in the target field.
-
Perspectival alignment is key – actualisation occurs through the cut; the network only models potential.
-
Entry conditions preserve coherence – constraints at the start of a pathway determine the permissible range of actualisation, maintaining the internal logic of the network.
By following these principles, the system network can be generalised without losing the relational essence that makes it a model of structured potential.
6. Looking ahead
This post has taken a practical turn: showing how SFL’s network can be mapped onto physics, biology, and social systems. The next conceptual step is to synthesise these domains into a general geometry of being — an overarching architecture of potential that unites linguistic, physical, and biological topologies under a single relational logic.
The system network thus serves not only as a model of language but as a prototype formalism for potential itself: an interdisciplinary tool for visualising how reality differentiates through perspectival actualisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment