The use of Greek neologisms for systems ontology is almost a subgenre in itself:
The anthropologist Terrence Deacon distinguishes between “homeodynamic”, “morphodynamic”, and “teleodynamic” systems. (This taxonomy already made an appearance on Less Wrong.) Stanislav Grof refers to “hylotropic” and “holotropic” modes of consciousness.
Theoretical biology seems replete with such terms too: autopoiesis, ontogeny, phylogeny, anagenesis (that list, I took from Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix); chreod, teleonomy, clade.
I guess Greek, alongside Latin, was one of the prestige languages in early modernity. Plenty of other scientific terms have Greek etymology (electron, photon, cosmology). Still, it’s as if people instinctively feel that Greek is suited for holistic ontological thinking (hello Heidegger).
layered … model
I feel like we almost need a meta-taxonomy of layered models or system theories. E.g. here are some others that came to mind::
The seven layers of the ISO/OSI model.
The layered model of AI (see diagram) being used in the current MoSSAIC sequence.
The seven basis worldviews of PRISM and the associated hierarchy of abstractions and brain functions.
You could also try Ivan Havel’s thoughts on emergent domains. Or the works of Mario Bunge or James Grier Miller or Valentin Turchin or many other systems theorists…
I think that, while there are many ways you can draw the exact boundaries in such taxonomies, a comparative study of taxonomies would probably reveal a number of distinct taxonomic schemas, and possibly even a naturally maximal taxonomy.
Ontonic derieved from Onto (Greek for being) - extrapolated to Onton (implying a fundamental unit/building block of beingness). And Meso (meaning middle) + Onto is simply a level between fundmental beingness and Anthropic beingness.
I think Greek gets used because there is less risk of overloading the terminology than English. I have tried to keep it less arcane by using commonly understood word roots and simple descriptions.
Thank you for the pointers Mitchell. I will analyze them and either update the model or explain the contrasts. I will still be focusing on ‘beingness’ (in sense of actor, agency and behavior) and keep the model clear of concepts that talk about consciousness, sentience, cognition and biology.
The intent of this visual is not towards an academically correct typology/classification itself. I was working on an evaluation of consistent self-boundary behavior (yet to publish) and on a method to improve it. I need to pin it to a mental model of the ambient space, so ended up aggregating this visual.
Felt it might be generally useful as a high level tool for understanding this dimension of alignment/evaluation.
Those first two words are neologisms of yours?
The use of Greek neologisms for systems ontology is almost a subgenre in itself:
The anthropologist Terrence Deacon distinguishes between “homeodynamic”, “morphodynamic”, and “teleodynamic” systems. (This taxonomy already made an appearance on Less Wrong.) Stanislav Grof refers to “hylotropic” and “holotropic” modes of consciousness.
Theoretical biology seems replete with such terms too: autopoiesis, ontogeny, phylogeny, anagenesis (that list, I took from Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix); chreod, teleonomy, clade.
I guess Greek, alongside Latin, was one of the prestige languages in early modernity. Plenty of other scientific terms have Greek etymology (electron, photon, cosmology). Still, it’s as if people instinctively feel that Greek is suited for holistic ontological thinking (hello Heidegger).
I feel like we almost need a meta-taxonomy of layered models or system theories. E.g. here are some others that came to mind::
The seven layers of the ISO/OSI model.
The layered model of AI (see diagram) being used in the current MoSSAIC sequence.
The seven basis worldviews of PRISM and the associated hierarchy of abstractions and brain functions.
You could also try Ivan Havel’s thoughts on emergent domains. Or the works of Mario Bunge or James Grier Miller or Valentin Turchin or many other systems theorists…
I think that, while there are many ways you can draw the exact boundaries in such taxonomies, a comparative study of taxonomies would probably reveal a number of distinct taxonomic schemas, and possibly even a naturally maximal taxonomy.
Yes, these two are new.
Ontonic derieved from Onto (Greek for being) - extrapolated to Onton (implying a fundamental unit/building block of beingness). And Meso (meaning middle) + Onto is simply a level between fundmental beingness and Anthropic beingness.
I think Greek gets used because there is less risk of overloading the terminology than English. I have tried to keep it less arcane by using commonly understood word roots and simple descriptions.
Thank you for the pointers Mitchell. I will analyze them and either update the model or explain the contrasts. I will still be focusing on ‘beingness’ (in sense of actor, agency and behavior) and keep the model clear of concepts that talk about consciousness, sentience, cognition and biology.
The intent of this visual is not towards an academically correct typology/classification itself. I was working on an evaluation of consistent self-boundary behavior (yet to publish) and on a method to improve it. I need to pin it to a mental model of the ambient space, so ended up aggregating this visual.
Felt it might be generally useful as a high level tool for understanding this dimension of alignment/evaluation.