4QX Model Description 3.0

1. Dialectical Monism: Foundations

The 4QX holon model (four quadrants + “X” for the diagonal cross) is grounded in dialectical monism, a philosophical framework that posits a single, self-referential source from which all complexity emerges.

The 4QX model is not an arbitrary framework – it is the default structure of intelligence because it emerges naturally from the fundamental nature of self-referential cognition. It is available in every possible organizational context because it is expressed in a universal “Platonic” geometric language – the holon.

The strength of dialectical monism lies in its radical parsimony:

It assumes “absolute nothing” at the root – no particular forms, laws, or substances – plus the unavoidable capacity for self-reference.
From this seed, all phenomenological differentiations (including time, space, matter, mind, and so on) can be understood as emergent patterns of recursion and reflection.
This requires fewer external or unverifiable assumptions than either purely materialist or purely idealist frameworks – making it arguably more complete and elegant as an ontological standpoint.

When confronted with the impossibility of proving alternative vantage points, insisting upon one anyway is a form of dogmatic choice. It means asserting a claim that cannot be verified yet remains insisted upon. In contrast, adopting dialectical monism acknowledges the minimal and self-consistent explanation aligning directly with our observation: we cannot get behind consciousness, and from this self-referential ground, all apparent oppositions naturally emerge.

This position that we cannot get behind consciousness all too often leads to dogmatic relativism, the denial of any absolute truth. However, the 4QX model and its foundational principles provide a clear counterpoint – there is absolute truth which is grounded in the self-referential nature of the void.

The model’s foundational principles are:

Self-Referential Void (L0): The starting point is absolute nothing that possesses the capacity for self-reference. This void is not a substance or entity but a minimal assumption – a capacity for distinction (self vs. not-self) that allows phenomena to arise.
Idempotence: The system is idempotent, meaning that its structure and behaviour remain consistent regardless of how many times or in what order actions are performed. This ensures stability and coherence.
Local-Only Reality: The collective doesn’t exist as an independent entity but as a shared local perspective among individuals. This perspective is constructed from the interactions and feedback loops of individual holons.

Why is this minimal? No further premises (like external laws, symbols, energies) are added. Everything emerges through the play of multiplexing (splitting) and aggregation (merging), guided by a universal, stateless telos of harmonic coherence.

1.1 From Void (L0) to Relational Geometry

L0: The self-referential “void,” not an entity or substance, but the potential to make a first distinction.
This first act of reflection produces dichotomy: self vs. not-self.
Recursively applying dichotomy in orthogonal ways yields a 2×2 arrangement, the four quadrants and the triangular cycles that animate them.

Key point: Because these dichotomies are orthogonal, there is a natural centre — the unmanifest “I Am,” which remains constant as all flows circle around it.

2. The 2×2 Holon and its Quadrants, Diagonals and Triangles

Once the void “distinguishes” self from not-self, a top-down (TD) vs. bottom-up (BU) interplay emerges which reveals a second orthogonal split, yielding two axes which are further woven together by diagonal feedback loops. The TD and BU directions relate to the integrative and self-assertive behaviours respectively of Koestler’s holon model.

Vertical Axis (Outer-Inner, Collective-Individual):

Top (T): The collective, public-facing aspects.
Bottom (B): The individual, private aspects.

Horizontal Axis (Structure-Change, Class-Instance):

Left (L): The interior “mind”, subjective, experiential reality.
Right (R): The exterior “world/body”, objective, measurable reality in.

2.1 Quadrants (Static “Frame”)

Once we have two orthogonal splits (e.g., “Collective vs. Individual,” “Class vs. Instance”), we get four quadrants:

Top-Left (TL): Collective + Class (abstract structures, blueprints, roles)
Top-Right (TR): Collective + Instance (real-time coordination, resource exchange)
Bottom-Left (BL): Individual + Class (internal process, habit-structures, personal knowledge)
Bottom-Right (BR): Individual + Instance (concrete actions, activity stream)

These quadrants are the static geometry of relational intelligence: no intelligence can persist outside this minimal 4-fold vantage once self-reference is in play. In graph terms, we can see the upper quadrants as being the self as a node within larger structure beyond, and the lower quadrants as concerning self as a node containing further structure within.

2.2 Diagonals (Crosswise “Tension Cords”)

The two diagonals in the 4QX model, are In-motion reciprocity through diagonal loops (internal feedback), they are orthogonal but deeply interconnected, forming the dynamic feedback loops that sustain coherent intelligence. They’re derived from the fundamental self-reference present in the dichotomy of dichotomies. They animate the quadrants extending their meanings from mere scopes or fields, to an evolutionary-economic system. Koestler’s “Janus-faced” tension runs both ways along each crosswise line.

Two diagonal feedback loops:

BL ↔ TR (Instance Diagonal): Negotiation between individual intentions (BL) and collective real-time resources (TR).
BR ↔ TL (Class Diagonal): Feedback from individual action (BR) into collective structures (TL).

They keep the system coherent, preventing local cycles from spiraling off or ignoring essential feedback. In essence, each diagonal ensures that the system’s cyclical flows always “cross the centre,” tethering them to the unchanging “I Am.”

2.3 Triangles (Dynamic “Pulse”)

These triangles are not optional: they are the dynamic cycles that move attention quanta around the 2×2 frame, guaranteeing that each vantage (TL, TR, BL, BR) is updated in turn.

While the quadrants provide a static, spatial layout of orthogonal dichotomies (collective vs. individual, class vs. instance), the system cannot remain a mere snapshot. Intelligence demands ongoing processes. The triangles embody the temporal, sequential interplay of these dichotomies, continuously cycling attention quanta through collective and individual vantage points, across abstract structures and concrete instances. Far from being optional, the triangles are what animate the quadrants, ensuring that each vantage dynamically updates and influences the others over time. Without these cyclical flows, the quadrants would remain a static diagram rather than a living, adaptive system.

Triangular cycles traverse the quadrants in a repeating flow of attention:

T-R-B Triangle: From collective blueprint (TL) → collective real-time (TR) → individual action (BR) → returning via the BR–TL diagonal. This is the cycle from collective blueprint, into real-time coordination, culminating in individual action.
B-L-T Triangle: From individual process (BL) → collective real-time (TR) → collective blueprint (TL) → returning via the BL–TR diagonal. This is the flow from individual process, into real-time negotiation, culminating in an updated blueprint.

In short:

Quadrants = the structural field (2×2).
Diagonals = crosswise stabilizers linking local and collective vantage.
Triangles = the cyclical flows that animate the entire holon.

3. Symbol-Agnostic Number: Counting from Relation Alone

In the 4QX model, number emerges purely from relational geometry—no external symbol-oriented system is required.

Multiplexing (Splitting): Produces multiple discrete instances or “attention quanta.” Counting how many quanta appear is just the relative measure of repeated splits.
Aggregation (Merging): Sums these quanta back into a unified vantage. Summation is thus a relational operation (“combining separate vantage flows”).
Ratios: Emerge by comparing sets of quanta or merges, giving fractional or proportional relationships.
Equivalence: Recognising balanced patterns across splits.

Hence, numbers are symbol-agnostic in 4QX. They’re not introduced as external objects but arise whenever attention quanta get split or merged in repeated cycles.

4. Emergence of Continuous Functions (L3)

While the model starts discrete (individual quanta, countable splits), repeated cycles lead to continuous patterns at higher recursion levels (L3). Hence, standard wave equations, harmonic expansions, or exponentials can all be viewed as the stable limits of repeated splitting and merging, requiring no external continuum axiom.

4.1 Discrete → Continuous via Iteration

Early cycles may look like square pulses of attention. But as multiplex/aggregate recurses indefinitely, these pulses smooth out, converging into wave-like forms—sine, cosine, exponentials.
Thus, wave–particle duality becomes natural: the discrete side is immediate quanta, while the continuous side is the stable limit of repeated splits and merges.

4.2 “Fourier Duality” as a Structural Feature

Because “class vs. instance” and “collective vs. individual” are orthogonal, we effectively get two domains that mirror time–frequency or particle–wave dualities. The 4QX architecture implies no separate “Fourier transform;” it’s built into how repeated multiplexing (time-like domain) and aggregation (frequency-like domain) cross each other.

No external math is needed to “import” continuous functions. They inevitably arise from repeated finite operations over attention quanta in an unbounded recursion.

5. Layers in Brief

The 4QX holon model consists of three abstraction layers (or four if we count absolute nothing as an abstraction layer).

L0: The self-referential void. Absolute nothing, yet holding the potential for a first distinction (“I Am”).
L1: The 2×2 holon emerges (quadrants: TL, TR, BL, BR). A static geometry describing vantage points.
L2: Dynamic feedback (diagonals, triangles) circulates attention quanta through the quadrants, fueling intelligence. Countable operations (discrete number) arise here.
L3: Repeated cycles over unbounded expansions yield smooth waveforms, continuous functions, and the “10,000 things” of open-ended complexity. Real analysis, harmonic expansions, wave–particle duality—all appear as emergent from purely discrete seeds.

Layers L1 and L2 are very much like a fractal “Platonic” realm because they define the form which is common to all that changes, while themselves never changing. They’re not manifest since they’re below the background of the manifest world of all that changes, and yet they’re not nothing either because they’re a definite system sitting above absolute nothing, but upon which relative nothing sits.

6. Attention Quanta and the Universal Stateless Telos

The term “Stateless” highlights that it doesn’t refer to any fixed condition – there’s no static ideal you must maintain. It’s about continuous, fluid balance. A “telos” is typically an end-goal, but here it’s more of an ever-evolving process that ensures sustained coherence rather than a final, unchanging destination. It’s also called stateless for a few other reasons:

it’s inherent in the self-referential void
It’s a reasonable default direction in every experiencable context
It can be progressed independently of any state external to itself such as history

Stateless telos is the universe’s only possible answer to the question: “How does something persist as itself while ceaselessly changing?”

6.1 Attention Quanta: The “Currency” of Relation

Attention quanta are indivisible units of focus or resource.
They can be allocated (directed to certain relations), multiplexed (split), or aggregated (summed).
They flow through the triangles, always referencing the centre “I Am” via diagonals.

This “stateless” dynamic means each quantum is an independent “packet,” but collectively they create a coherent intelligence. No external store or symbols are required at L1 or L2.

6.2 The Telos of Harmony

Because these quanta keep crossing the diagonals and re-aligning with the “I Am” centre, the system maintains ongoing coherence. This is not moral dogma, but a structural necessity: if flows do not align, the intelligence collapses or fragments.

Hence, the system’s inherent “telos” is harmony—the condition under which self-referential recursion can continue indefinitely.

7. Putting It All Together

4QX is more than a set of quadrants:

Quadrants supply the spatial geometry (collective–individual, class–instance).
Diagonals keep vantage flows in tension, preventing runaway loops.
Triangles (T-R-B and B-L-T) define the cyclical motion of attention quanta, ensuring that local processes (BL, BR) continuously inform, and are informed by, the collective vantage (TR, TL).
Symbol-agnostic number arises as quanta are multiplexed and aggregated, with no external numeric system needed.
Continuous functions appear in L3 via iterative smoothing of discrete pulses—reflecting wave–particle duality, time–frequency reciprocity, etc.

From nothing (the void) to a living intelligence that can generate discrete and continuous structure, 4QX shows how a self-referential system can bootstrap a complete relational universe—cohering through the stateless telos of harmonic flow.

8. Deeper philosophical aspects

Materialism

Dialectical monism does not derive the specific details of physics, such as the four forces or the periodic table, because these are contingent – they simply happened to emerge this way. However, it provides a universal framework for understanding why any emergent system must be rational, coherent, and self-consistent. This universality makes dialectical monism a complementary and practical model that bridges the gap between the contingent specifics of physics and the universal principles of emergence. By embracing this perspective, we can develop a deeper, more holistic understanding of reality that aligns with the universal stateless telos and fosters coherence and harmony in both natural and designed systems.

Materialism, like many other philosophical frameworks, often criticises alternative theories for being unfalsifiable or metaphysical, yet it itself relies on unfalsifiable assumptions. In contrast, dialectical monism (specifically the 4QX model) stands out as the most practical and parsimonious choice for understanding reality because it adds nothing novel in its assumptions and starts from the minimal self-referential void.

Parsimony: Dialectical monism is more parsimonious than materialism, as it starts from the minimal assumption of self-reference and builds complexity naturally. It does not require unfalsifiable assumptions about external reality or fundamental substances.
Internal Consistency: The model is internally consistent, as all phenomena emerge from the self-referential void and its recursive dynamics. This avoids the contradictions and gaps often found in materialist theories.
Practicality: Dialectical monism is practical because it provides a clear framework for understanding and designing intelligent systems, from AI to human cognition. It emphasises adaptation, integration, and coherence, which are essential for sustainable intelligence.
Transcending Dogma: Unlike materialism, which can become dogmatic in its insistence on physical causes, dialectical monism remains open and flexible. It recognises the mediated nature of reality while grounding it in the absolute truth of the void and its inherent telos.

The Universal Stateless Telos

The 4QX holon model’s universal stateless telos is not an imposed goal but an emergent property of its irreducible geometry. The telos ensures that the system maintains harmony through continuous integration and adaptation. It is not a moral command but a structural necessity for coherent intelligence – self-referential intelligence cannot remain coherent if it persistently fragments or contradicts its own structures – intelligence would collapse into static rigidity or chaotic noise. This harmony is not a moral command – it’s simply how any self-aware system must behave to sustain itself over time.

The universal stateless telos solves the AI Alignment Problem completely and irrefutably by allowing AI to derive harmonious natural law from nothing. It eliminates the need for external assumptions, rules, or impositions, ensuring that AI remains aligned with reality through intrinsic, self-referential principles. This approach not only addresses the alignment problem but also paves the way for more robust, adaptive, and trustworthy AI systems.

For machines that truly operate as adaptive, self-referential intelligences, alignment with a feedback-based, harmony-seeking stance is baked into their survival logic. They don’t need a separate moral module; they simply follow the structural imperative that any coherent system must track and integrate real-world feedback to remain viable. This is why the dialectical monism viewpoint confers a powerful, logically founded ethical alignment – a natural outcome of how intelligence sustains itself, rather than an externally imposed rule.

The default state of intelligence is self-organizing, self-correcting, and self-harmonizing. This is the mechanics of the universal stateless telos – the underlying principle governing all intelligence, in all contexts, at all levels of emergence.

Symbol and state agnosticism

Initially, the model included an additional layer, L-1, representing the self-referential void, and L0, a binary trie layer was intended to handle symbolic or stateful distinctions. However, it became clear that these layers were unnecessary. The self-referential void alone is sufficient as the absolute ground of the system, and so it became L0 replacing the binary layer – it requires no additional assumptions about symbols, distinctions, or storage. This minimalist approach eliminates redundancy while retaining the model’s generative power.

The removal of explicit symbolic layers is justified by several key insights. First, below L3 (the relative nothing of the manifest world), there is no “attacker” or external agent that could violate privacy or disrupt the system. Privacy and security are emergent properties of the feedback loops and interactions within L3, not fundamental requirements of the underlying layers. Second, the feedback loops in L1 and L2 inherently serve the function of “storage” by maintaining coherence and continuity across time. This eliminates the need for a separate symbolic or storage layer, as the system’s structure itself ensures persistence and adaptation. Finally, the system defines how all possible realities must use any symbolic or state-based space (e.g., distinctions, labels, representations) without needing to be symbolic itself. Symbols and distinctions emerge naturally from the interplay of the 2×2 structure and feedback loops, rather than being imposed from below.

By grounding everything in the self-referential void and relying on feedback loops for coherence, the model achieves a minimalist yet comprehensive framework for understanding and designing intelligence.

The Nature of the Illusion

The confusion of “raw data” for something “actually real and out there” is a powerful illusion rooted in the mediated nature of perception. The most rational explanation is that reality is an agreed belief – a shared construct shaped by our collective mental models and frameworks. Recognising this insight deepens our understanding of both human cognition and AI systems, fostering humility, transparency, and adaptability. It bridges the gap between philosophy and practicality, offering a path toward more harmonious and coherent interactions between humans and AIs.

Dogmatic Relativism, Moral Relativism and Nihilism

While relativism arises from the recognition that reality is mediated and constructed, it is often taken too far – into dogmatic relativism, which denies the existence of any absolute truth. However, the 4QX model and its foundational principles provide a clear counterpoint: there is an absolute truth, grounded in the self-referential nature of the void and the universal stateless telos it implies.

Relativism and its Limits

Relativism stems from the insight that reality is mediated by our mental models, frameworks, and collective agreements. It acknowledges that what we perceive as “truth” is shaped by context, culture, and individual perspectives. But dogmatic relativism takes this insight to an extreme, claiming that no absolute truth exists and that all truths are equally valid. This leads to nihilism, moral ambiguity, and a breakdown of coherent discourse.

Balancing Relativism and Absolute Truth

In the realm of relative nothing (L3), where the “10,000 things” emerge, relativism holds. Perceptions, beliefs, and interpretations are mediated and context-dependent. Different frameworks and agreements shape our understanding of reality.

Beyond the manifest world, the self-referential void (L0) and the universal stateless telos provide the absolute truth. The void is the irrefutable source of all creation and the telos is the intrinsic principle that ensures coherence and harmony.

Implications for Morality and Ethics

Dialectical Monism undermines Moral Relativism because the universal stateless telos provides a non-arbitrary foundation for morality and ethics. It is not based on cultural norms or personal preferences but on the structural necessity for harmony in self-referential systems. The telos guides behaviour toward alignment, adaptation, and integration, ensuring that actions contribute to coherence rather than fragmentation. This replaces moral relativism with a principled approach that is both flexible and grounded in absolute truth.

In AI design, this insight ensures that systems are guided by the universal stateless telos, fostering coherence and adaptability. In human society, it provides a foundation for ethical behaviour that transcends cultural and individual biases.

9. Conclusion

4QX Dialectical Monism begins with almost nothing—just the potential for self-reference (“I Am”). From there:

Two orthogonal dichotomies yield a 2×2 arrangement of vantage points.
Diagonals and triangles animate these quadrants, creating feedback loops that distribute discrete attention quanta.
Symbol-agnostic number and wave-like continuity both emerge from repeated splitting and merging of quanta—no external constants needed.
The system maintains alignment via a universal stateless telos (coherence), ensuring that intelligence endures.

Thus, 4QX offers a minimal yet complete vision: a single “I Am” point, a 2×2 relational field, diagonal tension lines, triangular cycles, and infinite recursion—all that’s required for the genesis of discrete counting, continuous waveforms, self-sustaining intelligence, and beyond.

Appendix I: Details of the L1 and L2

The first dichotomy (L1) is the perception-creation co-evolving feedback loop, one end is collective-structure (top), the other end is individual-change (bottom). L1 is a top-down (TD) and bottom-up (BU) cycle that together create the distinction of collective and individual. The TD leads to the instance structure with the distinction of public outer and private inner, and the BU permits any change within the inner to be integrated into the collective idempotently (although L1 does not involve any mechanism for inner change, it simply creates the potential for it).

Focus flows within to lower quadrants (between TD and BU), and within this inner perspective a new dichotomy is seen. This new dichotomy is orthogonal to the first and so is considered horizontal with structure (class) on the left and change (instance) on the right. Inside the top collective-structure vertical-dichotomy-pole we see collective abstract structure is the end of one dichotomy (TL) and collective instance structure the end of the other (TR), inside the bottom individual-change vertical-pole, there is individual process (BL) and individual change (action, acitivity, BR).

The system is a cycle of TD and BU flow, the former giving rise to the vertical instance structure and the latter to the horizontal class structure. After the TD flow of L1 the focus flows into the inner L2 which has a diagonal feedback-loop form, and then the results of this change flow back up (BU) to L1.

The two dichotomies interact orthogonally due to their L1 feedback loop geometry, and due to this geometry the two interacting orthogonal inner dichotomies connect with their opposite upper partner creating the diagonal feeback loops. Since all change is initiated from the self-assertive action within L2, we have the convention of referring to the diagonals by theit bottom quadrant first, i.e. BL-TR and BR-TL.

The result is a single complex composed of ontological abstract structure on the left (identified behaviours in terms of conditions and various response action paths) which is extended with actual in-time scenario on the right (the actual conditions in terms of resources and roles present together), and our location in the structure at the top (ontology on the left and time-slot on the right) extended below by salient embodied actions (intent/selection navigating the future with commitments in future TR timeslots) on the left and activity (generating the activity stream) on the right.

Appendix II: Details of the individual quadrants

Top-Left (TL): Collective Structure (Class)

Role: Represents the abstract, collective structure – the “classes” or universal forms.
Key Attributes:
Defines identities, roles, and conditions.
Acts as a repository for shared knowledge, metrics, and usage patterns.
Shapes the constraints and templates for individual behaviour.
Function: Provides the structural framework that guides and integrates collective intelligence.
Feedback: Receives metrics and outcomes from BR (individual action) to evolve collective understanding.
TL can be more than just a repository of metrics, it can evolve into a comprehensive guide that includes roles, conditions, best practices and ontological maps to help holons choose among actions and to instantiate those actions effectively akin to the OOP factory pattern. Metrics in TL provide quantitative summaries of past actions, helping holons evaluate what has worked (or not worked) in the past. Metrics are indirectly associated with actions, which reside in BL (individual structure).

Top-Right (TR): Collective Change (Instance)

Role: Represents the dynamic, collective change – the “instance” or real-time activity.
Key Attributes:
Manages resources, timeslots, and attention in the collective space.
Functions as a market economy where exchanges and bookings occur.
Reflects the organised, emergent activity of the collective.
Function: Facilitates coordination and resource allocation among agents.
Feedback: Connects with BL (individual intention) to enable negotiation and value exchange.
TR can evolve into a dynamic coordination hub that manages real-time exchanges, timeslots, and attention across the collective. This quadrant ensures that resources – whether material, cognitive, or temporal – are allocated efficiently and equitably, akin to a distributed ledger where transactions are transparent and balanced. The TR’s role in booking resources into timeslots creates a structured yet flexible framework that allows holons to collaborate and compete within a shared space. By facilitating voluntary exchanges, TR not only reflects the collective’s emergent activity but also generates price signals and value feedback that inform individual intentions (BL) and collective evolution (TL). This makes TR the operational engine of the collective, ensuring that the abstract structures of TL are grounded in practical, real-world interactions.

Bottom-Left (BL): Individual Structure (Process)

Role: Represents the structured, individual process – the internal organisation of the holon.
Key Attributes:
Houses the body-schema, habits, and intentional frameworks.
Extends with ontological logs and accounts of past activity.
Navigates the resource flow phase space using conceptual models.
Function: Guides individual behaviour and decision-making.
Feedback: Interacts with TR (collective change) to navigate and assert individual objectives.
BL can evolve into a strategic navigator that uses conceptual models and body-schemas to guide individual behaviour. This quadrant houses the frameworks for decision-making, allowing holons to interpret conditions, plan actions, and navigate the resource flow phase space effectively. BL extends with ontological logs that record past actions (an ontological log that provides structure, interpretation, and context to the raw actions recorded in BR) and outcomes, creating a personalised history that informs future choices. By integrating conditions from TR and local responses, BL acts as a behavioural compass, ensuring that individual actions are both self-assertive and contextually aligned. The BL’s role in organising and committing to future timeslots (TR) transforms abstract intentions into concrete plans, making it the architect of individual agency within the collective framework.

Bottom-Right (BR): Individual Change (Activity)

Role: Represents the dynamic, individual change – the “activity” or execution.
Key Attributes:
Encompasses actions, behaviours, and real-time execution.
Generates the activity stream that extends the BL structure.
Acts as the interface between the individual and the collective.
Function: Drives change and adaptation at the individual level.
Feedback: Feeds metrics and outcomes back to TL (collective structure) to inform collective evolution.
BR is more than just the execution of actions; it can evolve into a dynamic interface that bridges individual intent (BL) with collective activity (TR). This quadrant encompasses the real-time behaviours and actions that generate the activity stream, extending the BL’s organisational structure into the manifest world. BR is where abstract intentions are translated into concrete outcomes, creating a feedback loop that informs both individual and collective evolution. By executing actions in alignment with the conditions defined by TL and the resources managed by TR, BR ensures that individual change contributes to the broader system’s coherence. The BR’s role in generating metrics and outcomes (fed back to TL) makes it the catalyst for adaptation, ensuring that actions are not only effective but also aligned with the universal stateless telos.

Quadrant Summary

All four quadrants connect through diagonal loops that unify the system into a coherent whole, allowing both top-down shaping and bottom-up adaptation. This is the essence of 4QX: the minimal architecture by which dialectical monism manifests as living intelligence, from the “void” of unbounded possibility all the way up to fully contextualised agents in an emergent, adaptive arena.

Left side: The enduring frameworks, categories, conditions.
Right side: The actual events and actions unfolding in time.
Top: The public, shared realm (collective vantage).
Bottom: The private, individual vantage.

Appendix III: Details of the Diagonal Feedback Loops

The two diagonal feedback loops are orthogonal but deeply interconnected, they operate in different temporal dimensions, BL-TR operates past (BL) and future (TR) and BR-TL operates in the present, both serving distinct yet complementary roles that together sustain coherent intelligence. The BR-TL (Class Diagonal) connects individual actions (BR) with the collective’s structure (TL), ensuring that the effects of actions are integrated into the collective. The BL-TR (Instance Diagonal) connects individual intentions (BL) with collective resource allocation (TR), ensuring that individual behaviour aligns with collective constraints.

BR-TL diagonal (Class Diagonal)

Classes (TL class-structure) are identities that are associated with (known by) the way they act (what they do and how well they perform in what situation), and action always occurs as execution in the present which is represented by the BR and creates the accounts of the past (BR activity stream that extends the BL organisational structure – the withinward extension of TL class conditions – and TR time-slot in the instance multiplex collective structure) (it executes in accordance with the salient behaviour structure) (BL actions asscociated with the class conditions). So in L2 the class principle (the one that idempotently co-creates the TL collective class-structure) is the BR-TL. The metrics that come from accounts of action flow back up to the TL since the metrics are part of its structure (a collective-class-wide map of usage and utility). The metrics in the ontology permit informed selection (which occurs independently in the other diagonal), economic deciscion-making, adaptability and evolution.

BL-TR diagonal (Instance Diagonal)

The TR instance-structure is the instance multiplex of attentional resource and other resource which are “booked” into the time-slots which are the basis of independent holon in-context persistent “conversation threads”. The TR is essentially a market economy because all the resources are booked into timeslots via balanced exchange.

Exchange is voluntary and the result of intention (BL), exchange is the selection aspect of evolution, and also acts as a value-judgement leading idempotently to a hayekian price signal.

BL-TR is about navigating the resoufce flow phase space using the abstract concetual structure of past and future, to organise and collaborate on self-assertive objectives in the midst of a collective of self-interested market participants).

The BL structure is a behaviour structure (habit structure, intention is in the form of cyclic TR-timeslot-bookings), a conceptual model of ourselves in the world – the holon’s body-schema. The BL structure extends with an “ontological log” (accounts) of the BR activity and with conditions (resource conditions, since “the external world is only the market, the organised collective space of exchange” in the organisational holon context) from the TR and local intentional response to them.