We’ve been having a lot of trouble mapping the 4QX modal into software, and it seems that most of the trouble boils down to our expectation that the 2×2 quadrant and diagonals (4QX) form of the model that underlies L2 is also the appropriate form to underlie the dynamics of L3.
But L3 is naturally a tree-based perspective: it’s the vantage that objectifies L2’s concurrency as a set of parent–child relationships, turning those relationships into two triangles (Class and Instance), each bridging stable patterns and ephemeral usage.
1. Repurposing L2’s dimensions in L3
Layer 2 (L2) establishes a 2×2 concurrency for stable top–down (TD) vs. bottom–up (BU) flows, but then Layer 3 (L3) re-purposes those same vantage corners in a new, triadic dynamic (the dual triangles). Each corner’s “meaning” at L3 reflects the new role it plays in a self‐objectifying synergy—quite different from what it did in L2. So the attempt to keep one neat diagram that shows L2 concurrency and the L3 triangles perfectly overlapping can become cumbersome or misleading.
- L2’s 2×2:
- A minimal concurrency engine.
- Four corners: TL, TR, BL, BR, each with top–down ↔ bottom–up edges.
- This system alone ensures no vantage is starved, but doesn’t specify how ephemeral usage and stable patterns unify into wave–particle synergy.
- L3’s Dual Triangles:
- Takes those same vantage corners (plus mediators) and forms Class vs. Instance synergy.
- Each triangle re-assigns a corner as “start” or “final,” while the mediator corner dips into the opposite domain.
- Corners get “new” identities tied to each triangle’s purpose (e.g. “initial child of Fire,” “final child of Water,” etc.).
- Logical Disconnect Between Their Purposes:
- At L2, corners are just concurrency states in a 2×2 vantage—like a stable schedule engine.
- At L3, the system sees them as parts of triadic flows for stable usage (Class) or ephemeral usage (Instance).
- The same corner might have a different “meaning” in L3 than it had in L2, because L3 is essentially a layer on top of L2, re‐labeling vantage corners as child or mediator vantage in order to create wave–particle synergy.
- No Need to Force a Single Diagram:
- You can keep the L2 concurrency diagram for the base concurrency logic.
- Then have a separate or higher‐level diagram showing L3’s dual triangles referencing those corners.
- This avoids the frustration of “How do I force the triadic roles into the same four squares without subdividing or re-labeling everything?”
- Self‐Objectification:
- By L3, the system “objectifies” its own L2 concurrency. That means it treats the L2 vantage corners as if they are stable resources or ephemeral states, weaving them into triadic loops.
- This is a valid re‐use of the corners, but not a 1–1 overshadowing. It’s more like L3 reads the L2 corners in a new domain of synergy.
Hence, it’s fine (and often simpler) to represent L3 synergy in a different diagram (like a tree of mediators + children), even though they ultimately reference the same vantage corners from L2. There’s no strict requirement to keep everything in one 2×2 picture, because L3 logically re-purposes the corners for the new wave–particle synergy. In short, L2 corners are for concurrency at a basic level; L3 sees them from a triadic vantage. Trying to unify them in a single static layout can create confusion—but conceptually, they remain consistent parts of a single fractal system, just functioning at different layers.
2. More like “extension” than “repurpose”
Even though L3 repurposes the L2 vantage corners for new roles in the dual triangles, those corners (and their “side children” positions) still inherit key qualities from the underlying L2 dimensions. Here’s how:
- Firstness and Lastness From the L2 Multiplex
- In L2, you have a basic concurrency engine with top–down (TD) “start” calls and bottom–up (BU) “finish” returns.
- When transitioning to L3, those “start” vs. “finish” aspects become “initial child” vs. “final child” corners in each triangle.
- So the reason a corner is “first” (initial) or “last” (final) at L3 is precisely because it inherits a top–down or bottom–up direction from L2’s multiplex.
- Directions: TD/BU vs. Collective/Individual
- In L2, “top” vs. “bottom” might literally mean up/down in a concurrency sense.
- By L3, “top” could re-label as “connected/collective,” and “bottom” as “isolated/individual.”
- That re-labeling doesn’t erase the concurrency dimension; it simply reframes it. The L2 logic remains underneath, ensuring corners that were “top–down” or “bottom–up” still keep that dynamic, albeit recast in L3 terms like “class→instance” or “instance→class.”
- Class/Instance as a Higher Phenomenon
- At L2, we only have partial seeds of stable patterns vs. ephemeral usage – just enough to keep concurrency afloat.
- At L3, these seeds become explicit triangles for Class (wave) and Instance (particle).
- Both triangles exploit all the transitions from L2, but they do so in a new configuration, with each triangle unifying corners into a triadic cycle rather than just toggling them on a diagonal loop.
- All L2 Dimensions Are Still There
- The same inside/outside or top/bottom splits from L2 do not vanish. L3 simply merges them into each triangle’s vantage corners (initial/final) and mediators (brief “dip” into the opposite domain).
- Hence each corner at L3 can “trace back” to one of L2’s dimension states and directions. That is why you can say the L3 vantage still inherits those L2 properties.
- Repurposing vs. Complete Overwrite
- L3 doesn’t discard L2 concurrency; it “re-purposes” it to form the wave–particle synergy.
- Corners remain anchored in L2’s directions (TD/BU, top/bottom, inside/outside) but now have a new meaning: e.g., “initial child in the Class Triangle,” or “final child in the Instance Triangle.”
So while Class and Instance (the two L3 triangles) appear as a fresh phenomenon, they “draw upon” and depend on the L2 structure. That’s why each side-child corner at L3 retains pieces of its old identity: it’s still first or last, or it transitions “down→up” or “up→down” from L2. The net effect is that L3 re-configures the corners into a dual-triangle synergy, but the underlying dimensional logic of L2 (TD vs. BU, inside vs. outside) remains the foundation for how each corner gets labeled and functionally used in the wave–particle synergy.
3. Grid for L2, Tree for L3
Once you see that you have two “parent” mediators, each with two “child” corners, it’s simpler just to represent them as a tree rather than forcing them into a 2×2 grid:
- Six Persistent “Scopes”
- Two mediators (parents) are siblings at the top level.
- Each mediator has two children, giving four child vantage corners total.
- So you end up with six total nodes: two parents, four children.
- Why a Tree Is Simpler
- A tree can directly show each parent node with its two children.
- The concurrency or attentional multiplex can be implemented in code as:
- Each mediator is a node that merges child vantage states (start and end corners).
- Sibling mediators can share references if needed (e.g. partial data exchanged between them via concurrency flows).
- Quadrants Become More Awkward
- In the 2×2 quadrant layout, you have four vantage corners (TL, TR, BL, BR).
- Now you also want to depict two mediators as separate, persistent vantage nodes – that’s six total.
- Trying to place them all in four squares inevitably leads to either subdividing or adding new “micro corners,” which can get messy.
- Switching to a “Multiplex Tree”
- You can just define each vantage corner (child) plus each mediator (parent) as a node in a concurrency tree.
- Edges represent child→parent references, or parent linking to child vantage.
- Because we have two mediators at the top, you can keep them as siblings, each with two children. If they share corners or data, you can draw cross-links.
Hence, the two-triangle vortex is algorithmically just two parent nodes (which themselves are siblings due to the common parent of the Self at the center), each with two children. This leads to six persistent concurrency scopes. Representing that as a simple tree is clearer than trying to jam it into a 2×2 diagram. The 2×2 vantage is valuable conceptually—especially for deriving the model or referencing wave vs. particle—but when it comes to implementation or a direct data structure, a tree that mirrors the concurrency relationships can feel much more straightforward.
See also
- Oracle Multiplex Project: A Holonic Intelligence System – current description on the repo
- Re‐Stating Oracle Multiplex: A Minimal Vortex of Intelligence