A Semasiographic Language of Human Systems
I have given some thought to the intent of the word “semasiographic.” At root, I think its functional form is that of glyphs. Yet, because I love types and homology, I seek to find semasiographic language that express the systemics of tech and human activity.
§Blah
Things like this don’t really cut it. they are just ERD-style graphs. (which is a start) https://noflojs.org/img/diagrams/screen-and-map.png https://noflojs.org/example/ In other forms, the components and their wiring shows all of the assoc connections, and also the internals for each component. http://expressionflow.com/page/2/ https://www.tensorflow.org/programmers_guide/graph_viz The dimensionality can neither stay flat, nor can it all remain in focus all the time (depth of field, culling) https://www.tomviz.org/docs/ as well, the dimensionality needs to be semanitc http://ontos.com/products/applications/
viz-description of affordance and flow.
semasiographic glyph as a fourier-series representation. Chinese Cloud Script as a 2D assemblage of such semasiographic glyphs. (again, AI viz system ‘words’). See also [Terroir Isostructure]
§Composing these pieces
There are typical patterns that will emerge, like if arch design patterns couldhave symbols that were meaningfully composed, adaptable to state, while remaining ‘iconographic’ (actually, semasiographic!)
The information density of text is high, though! We can use windowing and panels to quickly mutiply this meaningfully and ala Vim, modes would focus specific visual layers, culling/fading the others Mind emerges by doing within being. Systems represent this by process == rituals. I like this thread, on the #emergence of #Mind via Practopoeisis. Higher order ecological psychology? Concept activation out of #morphology, ideathesia begs the question of semasiography. Is every #grapheme a #network atom? Is #notation the future of #language? Will AI’s contribution be to evolve the structure of human language?
Language, writing, semasiographic affordance, and neurosis. Discovery, wonder, fear, reflection. The problem of impedance in reinforcement learning.
§The Anscriptive Affordance of Hypermedia
I continually sniff out the edges of what it means to write in hypermedia - as a thing distinct from writing in classical print and related media
Inscription and ‘Anscription’: Surface and System in Cybernetics, Deconstruction, and Don DeLillo, by Zetter.
This essay proposes the concept of “anscription”, and employs it to rethink some of the typical valences of inscription in media theory. The word is derived from the German anschreiben, which can simply mean, ‘to write up’;
The term anscription will designate this quality of writing up, rather than writing down, and of laying marks across rather than into the surface of a medium.
First, a bit of inspiration from words that German has come to render:
a starting point for this more capacious theory of inscription might lie in the difficulty of rendering “Schreiben” and “Schrift” in English, which is missing a term not circumscribed by the dimensions of writing or the finiteness of inscription. [This can be seen] particularly keenly in rendering “Aufschreibesysteme” as it is used in Discourse Networks 1800/1900, by Kittler, Friedrich A., 1990.
Particularly:
It brings into unique focus the epistemology of mark-making that lies embedded in media history, and the gaps in this epistemology that remain to be filled.
….anatomising of distinctive practices may involve a concomitant set of relations among surface, tool, and symbol to that of the technical relations it seeks to describe. Hence, I have tried to propose a concomitant analytical frame to that of inscription, to deal with these relations by outlining three possible versions of the anscription concept.
I think this goes toward foundations of the semasiographic topic — where meaning, and the means of rendering, are tightly connected. In classical semasiography, involving material glyphs, we think of this tight-connection between the inscribed glyph and its meaning. Here Zetter’s “surface, tool, and symbol” points toward the elaboration of the medium that occurs with digital/virtual tools of hypermedia, and the ‘surface’ of devices that render hypermedia.
In the first, anscription appeared as a translation between body and space mediated through informational variation. Since it does not cut deep, anscription may move among various surfaces, be transformed among various levels or devices, and, as a result, supplement the sensations of the body.
In the first lemma, we can consider this activity of a ‘conversational’ system, where meaning is mediated in several ways (a manifold) between the media and audience. Among others, Beat Signer talks about this in various slides and papers, as well as Vanderdonckt
In the second, anscription described the extent to which writing expands beyond the historical contours of inscription, beginning to describe a practice specific to digital media that activates the fantasy that all bodies may be equally written across systems of meaning-making which have information at their base.
In the second lemma, an epistemological foundation is laid for the imagination to play out within this anscriptive affordance. We might consider that all historically successful renderings in hypermedia have come from this intuitive understanding of the affordances of anscription.
Finally, anscription was enacted in a strategic system of writing; it is writing as imperative and diagram, chalked up and played out “within the chalked borders of the playing field” (DeLillo 2011, p. 3). In this form, as DeLillo instructs us, it produces an absurdity that is located in informatics — that is a property of the fissure between information’s technical usefulness and semiotic irrelevance. Reading DeLillo alongside Siegert’s account of the digital’s emergence, we may reflect on the way this absurd form restages the tear between the symbolic and the real.
While I think Zetter’s consideration of ‘the absurd’ is an important mechanism, his following proposal may offer the most to this third lemma (emphasis mine):
Perhaps, as inscription is to writing, anscription is to calculating: in its restaging of the ontological fissure of the digital, anscription might represent one way to imagine the mode of scripting native to the computer, both as a technical object and as an ever-widening metaphor for our present epistemic moment.
I like the formal address of these 3 points. I’ve often found their mechanisms present in designing ‘writings’ (hypermedia docs) that not only translate and transfer information, but also give it a ‘skeleton’ — meaning, an underlying body for movement within the mind, by which the information can change or be repurposes/redirected for the needs of the reader.
Hypermedia as a link-graph language representation enables knowledge to remain connected in manner more-native to consciousness. The ends and means of Mind constantly break the edges of reality in a quest for realization that geometers the architechtonics of poetic leaps. The muscle for absurdity allows us to restructure our understanding and reposition Mind for the metaphysical propulsion of its quest. Untempered semasiographic communication is one of the instruments along this way.
§A simulation theory of entropy
https://s.ai/essays/thesis.pdf
§Social Sharing as Anscription
Media consumption is in fact a form of calculation. Our learning can, and perhaps inevitably does, change long term outcomes. By these, we seek to resolve some pains of the world, in an endless cycle. Doing so makes us, and maybe some part of the world, to be whole. (Therein lies some root of how fake news upsets us: by hijacking which calculation we are performing. This is why it triggers the focus on justice. This is harder when any state is involved in the source of manipulative media, as it triggers nationalism and balkanization)
Sharing information creates links, and network-effects can emerge new trends by the change in neuron-like thresholds.
There is an assertion that peoples’ attention now is impoverished by information overload. I don’t think that issue is information, as the world is old and full of rich information. Media richness is often connected with emotional manipulation. That goes on, but maybe often is a consequential effect of not considering how the UI and UX design do this.
One common topic of UX resides with presenting information as a trigger. The call-to-action, headline, callout, etc…. navigational anchors. These link to our prefrontal cortex, which predicates non-immediate things, like the outcome of choices, to click, read, learn, etc. While there is a wave….. of Personalization, mediation, hyper-executive function, and neuro-diversity….. which contemplates that triggering can be related to a large sense of identity, to the world, or just a social scale.
People can be Triggered by relating with political identity (many orders of magnitude larger that the embodied self). That limits people that are motivated to see the world one-dimensionally. This may predominantly affect people that are still in the process of ego and identity formation. At such time we seek consolidation / unification / ‘singulation’ / harmonization of identity, as ‘rooting’ or ‘grounding’ from which to experience the multiplicitous complexity of self. Maybe we seek this consolidation anytime that we undergo sufficient growth of the sense of identity.
§Consciousness and Reintegration
As soon as I read it, I had the sense that ‘Meinong jungle’ is an incredibly important space for the development of consciounsess that has been called ‘magickal’ or ‘alchemical’.
The article discusses the role in fiction, and I think missed the point. It’s not just fiction, it’s operationalized fiction. “Operationalized” in the sense of allowing ‘architectonic’ constructions of meaning, not ‘merely’ poetic, jazzy, ensembles that amuse the mind.
Meinong’s Jungle seems like the penumbra of mereological experience. At very least, the ‘challenging’ semantics therein can hold concepts of time — whether future-state or the inertia of the past [that may no longer remain except in a Meinongian illusion].
But maybe this jungle does not purely exist as time / ‘temporal multiverses’, but also about ‘alchemical forces’. The alchemical and magickal processes often (always?) involve the orchestration of symbolism. Minimally I’ll attempt to assert that alchemy and magicks involve ‘stacking’ meaning in multi-entendres. Indeed this discussion may benefit from reflection upon other geometric properties.
I personally woud lean toward the idea that there is a so-called jungle-like terrain through which things are birth — but i am fine if things can bypass it and caome into being without that (edited)
in either case, I’m still drawn to the sense that it’s natural that this jungle terrain (like path/ways in the dreamtime) can play a role in some things coming into being, or transmuting
but i have more a gravity-well kind of sense of it - that each of the semantic ‘roots’ (which are ‘stacked’ or joined in yet-to-be-stated ways), each of these roots is like its own gravity well (line / orbital). And when consciousness identifies a joining/mixing (in Meinong’s jungle) then two of those gravity wells are linked, or crossed. That draws in more of reality. Maybe it’s like the pilot wave.
