On Paradigm Organization

A long time ago, I called it Abstract Paradigm Organization Logistics.

Now I just call it the Logos.

APOL is the logistics of how paradigms are organized as abstract constructs of thought. This includes the processes of how thought is itself an abstract construct of life, how life is an abstract construct of chemistry, and how chemistry is a relative construct of physics. These constructs organize out of chaos, which propagates within a set of parameters set by physics. In this meta-paradigm, paradigms are no different than species that organize out of chaos, not unlike the fundamental processes of every construct in the cosmos. Since APOL is itself an abstraction structured by thought, it is but a best attempt to construct metaphysics to grasp and seek value from the reality we observe.

Whereas every process is determined by its primary causes, paradigms themselves are the most abstract of these processes, being bound only to the cognitive processes of the mind. Despite this, like every process, paradigms seek optimized resting states—not at all different from the way the bee has evolved, optimized, and stabilized its species into a niche of stable symbiosis and organization.

The honey bee is a good allegorical paragon of how processes seek resting states and organization. It is an organism that has optimized its ability to survive through precise collective organization, all the while doing so with effective symbiotic traits. As order randomly coalesces from chaos, it has, in many forms of life, evolved symbiologically stable organisms that are integrated with their ecosystems. They subsist in both order and chaos and display traits to deal with both: a bee possesses both a stinger to deal with chaos and a proboscis and hair to aid with pollination to achieve stable, whole-species survival.

Every aspect of process and construction in the cosmos—be it a bee’s evolution or a nation’s progress—originates from abstract and random organization from chaos. From the biochemistry of the bee and its behaviours as a social organism to the cognition of people and their economic systems of value acquisition, these things are structured by an abstract process of synergistic organization. However, human paradigm constructs can change much more rapidly than a bee’s behaviours can evolve.

These paradigm constructs that shape society are founded on abstractions of the mind, abstractions that are best formed from the observation and understanding of good, accurate sciences. From paradigms to behaviours to the systems of value acquisition and the world that is built to accommodate those systems, society is just as subject to change and innovation as the paradigms that founded its processes and constructs.

Like the evolution of organisms, society is built on paradigms that are stable long enough to create viable and dependable systems of value acquisition. This rigid and stable paradigm infrastructure is just as foundational to the operations of a society as is its physical infrastructure. In the same sense, both suffer from the same crux: the ability to remodel infrastructure is inhibited by the pre-existing dependency on existing infrastructure. This dependency adds value to static constructs, preventing the demolition of old infrastructure from being economically viable. Both demolition and reconstruction are resource-heavy processes: information is necessary for paradigm reconstruction and capital is necessary for physical infrastructure renovation.

Paradigms shape the infrastructure and the operations of value acquisition they enable, yet paradigms are, as a form of infrastructure, difficult to change. This is as true for political ideologies as it is for the conditions for social capital or the railroads that network between cities. Yet, none of these things could exist without the initial capacity to innovate and create new paradigm constructs. Paradigm renovations cannot begin without the expertise of those with the capacity to craft new paradigms, which often begins with crafting a paradigm of thinking capable of such innovative feats.

The initial renovation of the mind is a difficult process—one that must begin with honest observation of self, trying to describe the true reason we are thinking and doing things with empirical clarity. This process can be done silently in our own mind, observing while resisting impulsive explanations, as such things delay the process of self-awareness, though notation does help greatly. Through this process of self-analysis, it is possible to understand what factors lead to what modes of thinking and how the mind can be applied to changing itself.

As long as an individual understands who they are through honest observation of self, one can understand what thoughts are driven by what paradigm or impulse, and through exercising awareness of those things, we can prepare to shape the paradigms of the individual. In this process, the experiment of what works and what does not can begin. This process tends to change the identity of the individual more rapidly than their persona can adapt to and utilize. For this reason, to integrate those changes into a functional internal paradigm, these changes need to be exercised through expression of self and experience of the outcome of principle and character. So expression becomes the conditioning mechanism of choice for applying new paradigms.

Paradigms are always the initial infrastructure needed to create successful value acquisition processes. These processes can be put into two categories: those that serve the needs of the mind and those that serve the needs of the body. The basic needs of the body can also be categorized in two ways: those processes needed to sustain the individual’s body and those processes that promote the continuation of the species. Between these things—the needs of the mind, the body, and the species—the reprioritization of values can begin.

One of the things that focuses the mind on itself is the Stoic reconstruction of abstract value systems. Stoa is useful as it focuses the mind on only being emotionally concerned with the virtues of the mind; the structure of thought, not the processes of the world beyond that. This frees the mind from being burdened with worries about the absurdity of chaos inherent in processes that we cannot control. It is the chaos of process uncertainty that stresses the mind, so if the sole concern of the mind is its own structure, it frees it from the stress of concerning itself with what is uncertain. The self-conditioning that results from this lack of stress teaches the mind that focusing on its operation is beneficial, creating an internal incentive for the reconstruction of paradigms.

With the focus on the virtues of the mind and self-awareness, the mind can then focus on the process of abstraction, which can only be learned through dabbling in paradigms and allowing the mind to learn and abstract in different paradigms of thought from many cultures and disciplines. By getting a sense of how they change over time and intermingle, the mind can then dabble in changing paradigms creatively itself, if not inventing new ones. Paradigms can be constructed not only as tools for categorizing the world, but also to attempt to create new processes as well. With sufficient practice and latent intelligence, a person can become a crafter of new paradigms in whichever field they choose.

If this can be done for the mind itself, and the individual can develop a skill for working with paradigm organization logistics, then the art of applying that skill to the needs of the body and species follows intuitively. If those can be stabilized, then perhaps we may consider the question of what to do from there. The question of whole-species survival is, however, a problem not so easily solved. We know the body and species need economics to sustain a population; from tribal hunter-gatherers to global hedge funds, we all depend on systems of value acquisition to operate. However, these are again limited by the constructs they are currently invested in, from physical infrastructure to legal institutions.

As it is difficult to renovate the mind due to our dependency on the stability of those paradigms, it is also difficult to alter the social and economic infrastructure that constructs our economic network of value acquisition systems. The solutions are the same, though: find the means to renovate the system, and the latent value in any given process increases with each successive renovation of the paradigm organization logistics as the process becomes more efficient at organization and synergy.

This need of the species to optimize all parts of the process becomes a geopolitical process, which, when we apply the principle of synergy, further illustrates that the optimum process would be to elevate all of mankind out of the current drudgery of the human condition and create socioeconomic renovation on a global level. By doing this, we create the capital needed to allow the sciences to accelerate toward the acquisition of individual and species-wide needs. If we were to succeed at fulfilling our needs, we would only be left to find a technological optimum to rest at—a state that may never fully manifest unless the limits of physics could be reached through technological progress.

So global synergistics ought to be the economic philosophy of progress in regard to mutually assured flourishing. This, of course, comes with a plethora of paradigm infrastructure problems that require reconstruction. Politics needs to employ more of the population’s intelligence in the making of decisions and needs to be separated from corporate influence, which currently dominates the geopolitical landscape. Education needs to accommodate the entirety of the job market and social welfare systems to enable populations to acquire the social capital needed to grow an economy. Industry needs to be more adaptable and have a renovation plan in place for the passive reconstruction of each piece of infrastructure, be it physical or institutional.

These changes could all be made, and with a strategy of sufficient sophistication and comprehension of the current organization of socioeconomic systems, a paradigm of implementation could be implemented by a small group of individuals. By capitalizing on the leverage of existential threat and synergistic opportunities, a push-and-pull strategy could be implemented to change the corporate agenda. The problem with implementing such changes is that most do not understand how the corporations run the world’s political infrastructure, let alone how to devise a strategy of corporate leadership necessary for the construction and application of new socioeconomic and political paradigms.

The simple solution is shareholder activism, or, more ideally, activist investing. With a strong business plan and leverage over a corporation’s stock value, boardrooms can be made to listen to new strategies relevant to their business models—from joint investment strategies and modular infrastructure investment to lobbying initiatives supporting synergistic economic systems. If the model is profitable, corporations can be made to listen to the sophistication of such initiatives and be compelled to act on them through stock pressure.

If this can be done, society can progress faster, and the resulting sciences—which produce the information needed to construct new paradigms—will accelerate at a much more rapid rate. Technologies allowing us to change the human condition, rather than only being able to change environmental and cognitive processes, could revolutionize how we organize and evolve toward the ends of whole-species organization. Perhaps technologies such as the Matrioksha brain that could simulate entire realities could come to exist, or science may yet prove the theories of hyper-dimensional black hole symmetry, random chronological reincarnation, or ex nihilo, which would change the way we see the universe and, thereby, change our paradigms of how to organize in it.

From the initial change of paradigm reconstruction to the transhumanist horizons they could lead us to, it is essential to understand that the biological abstractions that are our paradigms remain the core of APOL philosophy and the fundamental logistics for geopolitical and socioeconomic organizational processes. As this paradigm could not have been arrived at without the philosophical and scientific labors of the past—both of which are themselves ever-changing paradigms—paradigm logistics too renovate constantly and fluidly over time.

Like the evolutionary processes in symbiotic ecosystems the world over, paradigms constantly seek to advance their grasp of reality and lay the foundations for more efficient processes of value acquisition. The values at play, primarily the values of the mind, body, and species, lay the foundations for society and the sciences on which these systems are built. In the past, our abstractions were obscure shadows of reality, so APOL must be understood as a best effort to grasp a very difficult socioeconomic logistics. No matter how successful a paradigm is at producing a successful process of value acquisition, it must always be remembered as an abstract construct of thought if we are to build on it for what it is—skillfully avoiding ever calling a paradigm a perfect illustration of the reality it attempts to illustrate.