°°°°~x§x-<@>
Introduction
In our fast-paced world, we’re constantly bombarded with information and decisions. How do we make sense of it all? In scybernethics, we explore this question by diving deep into the heart of what we call “com-putation,” a process that goes far beyond mere calculation. It’s an embodied, intuitive approach to meaning-making that involves engaging with conceptual dipoles, seeking an aesthetic feeling of harmony, and resonating with a second-order logic (Logic²).
Conceptual Dipoles: Navigating Tensions
At the core of scybernethics “com-putation” lies the idea of conceptual dipoles: pairs of terms that seem to be in opposition or complementary to each other, like “form/process”, “inside/outside”, or “logic/analogic”, and even “explaining/understanding” in which we are immersed right now. These dipoles represent fundamental tensions in our understanding of the world. A key feature of conceptual dipoles is their inherent asymmetry. One side often appears easier to define, grasp, or formalize, while the other remains elusive. For example, “form” is something we can point to, while “process” is dynamic, fluid, and harder to pin down.
The Natural Attitude and the Initial Grasp
When we encounter a conceptual dipole, we tend to naturally gravitate towards the more easily formalized side. This is one aspect of what is called the phenomenological “natural attitude”: a common-sense tendency to begin thinking by “grasping” a form and considering the perceptive evidence of an objective “world-out-there”. This biases us towards the more easily formalized side of the dipole and causes us to overlook the processual one. This tendency is further amplified and supported by the need to share commonly validated “explanations” inter-subjectively, as is generally the case in classical science.
“Com-putation”: More Than Just Calculation
The etymology of “computation” can be broken down as follows:
- Derived from Latin com, meaning “with” or “together.”
- From Latin putare, which originally meant “to prune” but later evolved to mean “to reckon,” “to think,” or “to calculate.”
In scybernethics, “com-putation” is not about formal mathematical operations but instead about meaningful intuitions. It’s a dynamic, embodied process of meaning-making. It can be seen as a “situated meaning-making transformative operation” that involves engaging with the tension between the poles of a conceptual dipole, before making a decision. It’s a way of evaluating the asymmetrical relationship between these two poles.
This “com-putation” is a synchronic, simultaneous, and embodied evaluation which is deployed iteratively. It is lived analytical differentiation (differentiation has been a driving force in the evolution of both mathematical understanding and cognitive-like technologies) and is about “weighing” the two sides, much like holding two objects in your hands and feeling their differences, actively engaging the sensorimotor loop. It is an “internalized gesture of weighing” where an embodied feeling of difference emerges. It is thus a bio-cognitive act rather than a purely logical or intellectual one.
The Crucial Suspension of Judgment
A central part of this process is the suspension of judgment. Rather than rushing to a conclusion or forcing a synthesis, we temporarily set aside our initial inclination towards the easily graspable side of the dipole. This allows us to deeply feel the tension between the poles, creating a space for new understanding and meaning-making.
Intuition as Enactive Inner “Touch”
Intuition is not a sudden flash of insight. Rather, it’s a cultivated enactive process, a result here of the dynamic interactions between the self, intersubjective knowledge, and computer simulations. It’s about an inner “touch” or enkinaesthesia (cf. Susan Stuart, Radman), a form of embodied awareness that emerges as we engage with a conceptual dipole.
Computer simulations, especially of Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) and self-organizing/emergentist models in general (CA, ANN, Swarms, etc), serve as technological metaphor to simulate and understand intuitive processes. These simulations are not used so much for building artificial intelligence, but rather for enhancing our own understanding by offering a phenomenological conception of the enactive gesture.
Aesthetic Feeling: Harmony and the Golden Ratio
The goal of “com-putation” is not just to understand the poles of a conceptual dipole but to feel their dynamic relationship. When this relationship is in balance (fairness), we experience an aesthetic feeling of harmony. This feeling is a form of “biocognitive homeostasis”, which is akin to a sense of balance and proportionality related experientially to the golden ratio.
At first it may seems strange to a “Cartesian” mind to introduce such aesthetical conception, but it becomes more rational when we try to understand the geometrical meaning of this proportion of proportions (second-order proportion²). Science has an aesthetic dimension.
The golden ratio, or extreme and mean ratio (Euclid), is defined explicitly and in comprehension as “the ratio between the small part and the big one is the same as the ratio between the big part and the whole”. It’s a mathematical concept found in art and nature, which is often associated with beauty and balance. It is also the point of convergence of the Fibonacci sequence and related to the greek gnomon (a shape that, when added to a figure, produces a new figure similar to the original).
It illustrate clearly what I have called the quasi-bidimensionality of lived cognition, relating the “quasi-double” constraint between part/part and part/whole. This ratio is also related to the “spiralic” dynamics we can perceive in our recursive meaning-making cognitive and phenomenological trajectories (cf. scyberspace).
Experimentally and intuitively, this seems to be the balance point towards which my explorations have brought me and which I have rationalized, I think pertinently, in this way. So in scybernethics, the golden ratio serves as a metaphor for the kind of proportionality we seek when dealing with conceptual dipoles, leading to the search for an harmonic and fair point (sweet spot) of the relation.
It is not only related to the notion of quasi-bidimensionality but also to second-order logic (logic²), where a distinctions is understood as both a clear analytical segregation between two conceptions (like 1P vs 3P perspectives) but also as one encapsulating the other (emergence, levels of abstraction and hierarchical distinctions), leading to the integrated phenomenological concept of distinction². It is the experiential root of scybernethics ana-logic (analogic and logic) conception of rationality (ratio-nality), which encompass and extend classical linear and explanatory “reason”.
Logic²: A Second-Order Resonance
This feeling of balance, through enkinaesthesia, also resonates with scybernethics’ second-order logic (Logic²). Logic² is formalized as a second-order ana-logic ratio (ratio²), which emphasizes the combination of analogical and logical dimensions. The golden ratio and Logic² both represent a relation of relations (relation²), which is a way to understand the pconstraints between analytical parts of coherent whole.
On this schema, you can see the hermeneutical and heuristical circulation (formal co-determination) between both polarities (analytical vs hierarchical) of the second-order distinction², integrating both the first-person (1P) phenomenological and the third-person (3P) classical Cartesianist science perspectives.
This relates to the principle that the initial epistemic act brings forth a distinction between subject and object. Scybernethics includes the observer in the system being observed, which is also a second-order cybernetic principle. The “not three, not four” aspect of the golden ratio and the self-referential nature of second-order thinking make them deeply resonant with each other.
Practical Application: A Step-by-Step Guide
So how can we use this practically? When facing a complex situation, you could:
- Identify the conceptual dipole: Recognize the opposing or complementary terms at play.
- Acknowledge the asymmetry: Note which term is easier to grasp or define.
- Suspend judgment: Resist the urge to immediately pick a side, and allow the tension between the poles to be felt.
- Apply the ethical imperative to drive your attention toward the “weak” side of the dipole.
- Weigh the poles: Consider each side not only intellectually but also through your embodied feelings.
- Seek the aesthetic feeling: Look for a sense of balance, a feeling of rightness while letting go of any pre-conception.
- N.B.: To be sure of this last point, one strategy is to completely forget the problematic tension at this point (modeling “without intention”) and let your embodied, unconscious inner wisdom do the balancing work. If it really matters, it won’t be lost, and you can be confident to face this particular conceptual dipole again in the future (the spiralic trajectory effect).
- Try to define iteratively the harmonic point of the relation, the attentional sweet spot between both polarities (slightly on the “weak” side), defined by the intersection of the orthogonal recursive-imaginary axis on the analytical Cartesian one (cf. formal scyberspace).
Conclusion: A Deeper Way of Knowing
By understanding “com-putation” as an embodied, intuitive process, we move beyond purely intellectual calculations toward a more comprehensive and meaningful way of understanding. Scybernethics offers us a path to generate deeper insights through the suspension of judgment, seeking balance, and feeling the aesthetic harmony, thereby transforming not only our understanding but also ourselves.
In fact, “Scybernethics” itself and its key concepts are the post hoc formalized result of such an embodied and enacted distributed process, patiently developed and balanced iteratively over many disciplines and many years. Scybernethics is a regulatory paradigm.
°°°°~x§x-<@>
References
- Stuart, S. A. J. (2011). Enkinaesthesia: The fundamental challenge for machine consciousness. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 3(1), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000650
- Radman, Z. (2012). Knowing without thinking: Mind, action, cognition, and the phenomenon of the background. Palgrave Macmillan.