An Essay Featured In (Re)constructing “A is A” by O.G. Rose

The VORD (Part 3)

Sections IX-XI

O.G. Rose


Photo by NASA


Since Physics is a foundational Vector, we should expect to be able to find ways in which “higher Vectors” end up “embodying” The Leibniz Oscillation. Leibniz shows how this occurs in Mind, and I think Girard and Darwin can provide ways to understand it in Biology and Culture (with Culture “embodying” Biology, suggesting overlap). At the same time, we should expect uniqueness, which we will explore in the following. This is a very tentative list, and I am not sure at all if the description of the “processes” for each Vector is accurate. However, I hope the logic I explore works just as well, even if in the future “The Vector Tower” needs to be updated and corrected. Furthermore, I don’t know if each Vector entails many processes (interacting), if some entail one that is so predominate that it “might as well” be the only process, or if some Vectors entail one process while others entail many. Again, I have no idea: my point is ultimately to suggest a framework and to eventually touch on “the problem of Vector transitions,” which seems essential (please note I’m still not sure if the LO is a process of Subphysics or Physics, or if Mind and Culture need to be combined, reordered, etc. — all of this can be readjusted in the future as need be). A very tentative depiction of “The Vector Tower” could be depicted as follows:

This is not meant to be exhaustive at all, nor am I entirely sure that it is correct — my point is simply to depict a macro-structure (for thinking): this is an extremely tentative model, but I believe it conveys the point I’m trying to make. I am not in this paper particularly invested in the details of what “processes” or “fields” should be included in each Vector (experts should correct me): again, my objective is to delineate the macro-framework of “The Vector Tower” itself. It is very possible “language” should go in Mind instead of Culture (or between them), as it is possible that “language” isn’t a process worthy of its own designation. I don’t know — again, please see Alexander Bard and Alexander Elung for those details, who are much better sources of such information. Admittedly, I wasn’t even sure where to place Philosophy or Computer Science, and again there is debate on if Mind and Culture need to be combined. Please also note that the model above isn’t a “Theory of Everything” but a “Theory of Each-Thing,” for it is simply a structure in which to fit and organize each process while maintaining their uniqueness and irreducibility.

Since “higher Vectors” embody the Vectors below them, we should expect to see “traces” of say LO, chemical reactions, and evolution in the Vector of Mind, along with imagination and memory. Since Mind entails imagination and memory, the “ways” which LO and chemical reactions appear and manifest in Mind will be very different than how they express themselves in Biology, and even more so in Chemistry. With every additional Vector in a given “embodiment,” new behaviors “emerge” relative to the additional complexity and processes of a Vector, and relative to ways those complexities and processes uniquely interact. Within Biology, all “embodied” together in the Vector, evolution, chemical reactions, and LO can interact (and possibly “emerge” to Mind thanks to this unique embodiment), whereas in Chemistry only LO and chemical reactions can interact (and possibly “Emerge” to Biology). Each “embodiment” entails a new process — when Biology Emerges, for example, the process of “evolution” comes into existence — and then that unique process can begin interacting uniquely with the previous processes of earlier Vectors (LO and chemical reactions, in this case). Hence, it isn’t the case that new emergences are “all that’s going on,” as if the precious processes fade out of existence. LO and chemical reactions continue to exist in the Biological Vector, and now LO and evolution can interact and influence one another in ways which were never before possible.

The dialectic between Vectors is a “Hegelian dialectic,” which critically is one in which there is never a synthesis that causes previous Vectors to vanish “into” the new Vector. This point is elaborated on in “ ‘Hegelian Dialectics’ Are Not ‘Discussion Dialectics’ ” by O.G. Rose, but basically we need to stop thinking about Hegel in terms of a thesis and antithesis which come together in a synthesis. The so-called “thesis” and “antithesis” never go away in Hegel: what “arises” between them will then interact with what came before. All the new “parts” then develop and progress “alongside” and in tension with one another: there is no “merging” into some resolution like some ideas of a dialectic suggest. In Hegel, there is always a “gap” between what came before and what comes next, versus some “gap-closing synthesis.”

Following Hegel, it can be said that all subjects are left with “lacks” while Vectors are left with “gaps.” Nothing merges into “oneness,” “wholeness,” or the like — all of these are examples of effacement — newness always brings with it new divisions. However, while “lacks” and “gaps” are maintained, this doesn’t mean that entities cannot influence or interact with one another. How Vectors interact though varies, and there is a difference between “embodiment” and “participation.” Do Vectors which “embody” lower Vectors have more power and influence over those lower Vectors than do the lower Vectors have power and influence over the higher Vectors they “participate” in? I don’t know, but it might be the case that once Chemistry is “embodied” in Biology, the “Biological process of evolution” has “more influence” than Bohr’s Bond Model or the LO, as Mimetic Theory might have “more influence” in the Vector of Culture than memory and imagination. This isn’t to say memory and imagination have no influence on Culture, but it is to say that since Mind only “participates” in Culture, the dominate process is perhaps Mimetic Theory. This might suggest why Vector development “up the Vector Tower” continues: forces and processes “up” the Tower become more powerful and influential than lower Vectors, perpetuating the generation of new Emergence Vectors.

That all said, it’s still curious to me how “lower Vectors” are changed once they start “participating” in “higher Vectors.” How do “higher Vectors” work back and down up “previous Vectors” in a manner that changes them? Do they? Well, this is a big question, and leads us into inquiries about “Vector Interaction,” but for now we are still in need of describing how new Emergent Vectors come into existence. However imperfectly, incorrectly, or merely metaphorically, we will attempt that now.


The following description of “how Vectors emerge” (a mechanism of transition) may ultimately prove inaccurate. What “the moment and conditions are like” exactly when a new Emergent Vector arises — “a Pure Difference dialectal with Sameness” (a negation/sublimation versus effacement) — may end up to always be a mystery, and that could certainly be the case and Vector Theory still hold true. Also, the following description could just prove to be an ontological description (which is to be “conditioned by human understanding”), and it may also border on being “a general theory” like what Bard admonishes against. However, I think since all Vectors (perhaps even Subphysics) must at least “embody” the Leibniz Oscillation, we should expect all Vectors to “formally” entail it to some degree, hence why the following metaphoric description involving magnets will be notably LO (which can be seen as describing atoms and quarks). This is not a “monotheory” — I don’t believe in those and prefer “polytheorism” — only a pattern which may prove somewhat descriptive.

With “the dots” in mind from the earlier graphics, imagine that the universe is full of small magnets. We cannot tell which magnets are positive and which are negative, but naturally the magnets with opposite charges are “pushed around” until they find one another and come together to form clusters. As clusters assemble, “things” arise and come into existence (within and according to a Vector). When magnets are pushed “toward” one another which have similar charges, the magnets are pushed back and around until they come close enough to magnets with opposite charges that they can attracted and form clusters. A few notes:

1. Please note that it doesn’t have to be the case that each magnet is “either” positive or negative in its charge: magnets could be 30% positive and 70% negative here, 80% positive and 20% negative there — and so on. This also means that the strength of “binds” in clusters could vary, as there could also be varying levels of tension. In this way, levels of complexity to the description could be added.

2. Clusters are not syntheses: magnets never merge and become “the same magnet.” Magnets always maintain their distinctions and individuality, even if they begin moving together in a “cluster.” In this way, a “cluster” suggests a Hegelian dialectic (versus a “discussion dialectic”).

Considering the magnets, the force caused by all this “pushing” and “attracting” keeps the magnets and clusters moving, finding new clusters and sometimes even being “pulling apart” when a cluster finds itself between bigger clusters that assert greater force on the cluster then what the cluster asserts on itself. This is to say that magnets entail in themselves the forces needed to keep “processes going.” You may recall this chart:

The points of “pure difference” and “sameness” depicted here are themselves “dots” relative to other “dots” (of different and varying Vectors); though the above chart focuses more so on depicting “the individual experience” of a dot, it would be more accurate to depict something like the following:

The assignment of chargers and trajectories here is completely random, but hopefully the point is clear: “dots” are interacting off one another, forming clusters and constantly in motion. One “cluster” could be a zygote forming, another “cluster” could be two particles of hydrogen binding with oxygen to become water, and another could be a romantic relationship starting that is “broken apart” when the romantic “cluster” gets too close to something else with a charge “stronger” than the charge between them. There are many possibilities, seeing as the LO is “embodied” by all the Vectors. Now, consider:

This is a “cluster,” a “concert of dots” which are moving together while never moving “too much” together that they fall either into “sameness” or “pure difference” (difference is maintained here). Each “dot” doesn’t merge into one another: there is “coming together” but not “merging together.” Yes, “clusters” like this can be rare, because the right balance of charges must “find one another” and come together without undergoing destabilization. To depict this, consider the following, and note that I am calling a “Strong –” a “dot” which has say a charge of “90% negative and 10% positive,” while a “Weak +” might be “40% negative and 60% positive.” The second is just barely more positive than negative, and thus is a “Weak +,” whereas the first is far more negative than positive.

Note that there is a “Weak –” which is held against two other weak negatives: shouldn’t that be pushed apart? There is certainly a tension there, but the “Strong +” is strong enough to hold the weak negatives together through one another, thus forming a “cluster,” though with tension. The “Weak +” furthest outside the weak negatives may also be helping the “Strong +” hold the weak negatives together.

Since there is a tension between the weak negatives, it is possible for an external cluster to come along and break apart the depicted above “cluster.”


The incoming “Strong +” pushed apart the “original cluster” right at the point where the “Weak –” combined with the “Strong +”; as a result, the “original cluster” was not able to hold together and underwent reconfiguration. Perhaps the “original cluster” represents a family, and the “incoming cluster” is a couple which consists of a woman whose personality is very similar to the wife in the “original cluster.” Because they are so similar, they fall into “mimetic rivalry” over their career positions, and neither will back down from trying to “out do” the other. The wife in the “original cluster” then spends more time on her career, and as a result begins to alienate the other members of the family, who respect determination and commitment but also don’t think careers are everything (in this way, they are examples of “Weak –”). Those three members then become more determined that careers aren’t everything precisely in seeing how the wife starts to act, and so become stronger in their “positive charges,” per se. They might still be “Weak –” overall, but now there is enough positive charge to increase the tension between parts of the cluster and push it apart. However, the fourth member of the family who doesn’t think much about careers at all stays “clustered” with the determined Mom.

The example just offered would describe a “family culture,” thus belonging to the Vector of Culture, but a similar example could be made relative to Mind. Let’s say my worldview is Christianity and my theology very Fundamentalist. My “Strong +” comes from my “strong confidence” that the Bible is inerrant, but then someone comes along who has “strong confidence” that the Bible is errant. We clash, and though my view that “inerrancy is necessary for Christianity to be true” isn’t altered, the very experience of a committed Christian disagreeing so strongly weakens my overall belief in Christianity. Thus, I begin separating my belief in Christianity (which is “clustered” with inerrancy) from my beliefs in politics, career, and family (the three “Weak –” dots to the bottom right). Since Christianity held together my positions in politics, career, and family, once they are all divided, the three “Weak -” dots begin breaking apart from one another too.

And so on: I will not make examples of “The Leibnizian Magnetic Oscillation” for each Vector, and please also note that, again, I do not intend to reduce all Vector processes to just being variations of LO. That would be too simplistic: my point here is only to describe how “clusters” form in LO and why everything in the universe entails constant change. The precise and exact mechanisms according to which electricity operates are much more complex and detailed than LO, even if that mechanism happens to entail some degree of “formal similarity” to LO, precisely in “embodying” Physics. Every new Vector is an Emergence, and thus cannot be reduced to LO even if they somehow “share an image and likeness” with LO.

Lastly, before moving on, I would like to stress once more that the so-called “magnets” or “dots” are not actually magnets and that the force between them isn’t actually “magnetic.” Each “dot” is an entity which cannot be “the same” or “purely different” relative to other entities without ceasing to be itself, and it is this natural ontological fact that things cannot be themselves and also “the same” or “purely different” that causes the movement and “processing.” The force is “ontological” (and perhaps even “ontic”), not “magnetic,” though it is “like” a magnetic and thus the use of the metaphor. I almost want to call it the “Leibniz Force” or “Vector Force,” but I am not sure: the point is that it applies to Physical entities as well as to how the Mind comprehends and understands (considering Analysis of Situation by Anthony VZ Morley). Funny enough, since what motivates “the processing” between sameness and pure difference is an effort to avoid effacement, it would be fair to say that the logic of the Leibniz Oscillation is a “death drive.” Well, perhaps it is a “life/death drive” — hard to say (as all /s are).


Alright, we are now ready to attempt a description of the situation in which a new Emergence Vector arises. Again, I want to stress: this is extremely general and could be entirely wrong — please discard it if it proves ridiculous. That said, the following schema at least helps me understand “the moment of Emergence” and “the mechanism of transition” by which Vectors give rise to new Vectors. If anything, the imagery at least seems helpful to me for organizing future inquires and investigations.

We discussed earlier “Ontological Impasses,” and suggested that all we need to do is accept that the universe is constantly in flux and “becoming” in order to approach a mechanism by which “Emergences” could occur and would occur over enough time (though not necessarily, since it is not “necessary” that enough time transpires before the universe is destroyed). Through our metaphor and imagery of “the dots” and “magnetics,” we have delineated “the flux” according to which the universe “becomes,” and it is by this mechanism that an “Ontological Impasse” can be formed. But how exactly? How could we describe that moment where the universe “builds up pressure” and “breaks through” the Ontological Impasse with something that is (relatively) “nonbeing” and/or “nonontological” (like nonrationality in Nash Equilibria), and thus “new being” and “new ontology” Emerge. To elaborate, consider:

Rationality + Nonrationality = Solution to Nash Equilibria
Being + Nonbeing = Solution to Ontological Impasses
Rationality — Nonrationality = Irrationality
Being — Nonbeing = Effacement

Relative to Physics, for example, Biology is a “nonontology,” per se, for nowhere in the Vector of Physics can we find Biology. In a sense, relative to Physics, Biology isn’t real (perhaps we could say that “it exists but isn’t real”), though Physics relative to Biology is real (through Biology, as we will discuss in the context of intervectivity, suggesting that every Emergence Vector transforms all previous Vectors, at least to itself). In this way, we could say that every Ontological Impasse is overcome by something “which exists but isn’t real,” as Nash Equilibria are solved by “that which is a solution but isn’t rational.”

Now, once a “nonrational action” solves a Nash Equilibrium, it’s “as if” the “nonrational action” was always and actually rational: a “flip moment” occurs that makes it seem like rationality and only rationality was always at play. This causes a lot of confusion, and ultimately results in us believing Game Theory “teaches us how to be more rational,” contributing to the problem of “autonomous rationality” and our failure to grasp the essential and necessary role of “nonrationality” in our thinking (a mistake I think university departments in Game Theory are notably prone to make). Similarly, a “nonontological action” solves the Ontological Impasse, but the moment it does so it’s “as if” the “nonontological action” was always and actually just an “ontological action”; in other words, if Physics arises to Biology, it’s “as if” Biology was always and actually just Physics. The “flip moment” makes it seems “as if” Biology isn’t irreducible and “nothing nonontological occurred” with Biology’s Emergence. In this way, every Vector naturally experiences itself “as if” reducible to the Vectors which came before it. This is a mistake we can correct with imagination, which becomes possible thanks to Mind (as explained in Section IV), and without Mind we’d be “practically stuck” in our embodiment “as if” Vectors were only real to the degree they participated in that embodiment.

If the universe is everything, then Ontological Impasses have to be something “in” the universe, but how could the universe arise to something which becomes an “impasse” to itself? The following was claimed in Section V:

Perhaps Physics “bounced off” this limit a few times […] but eventually Physics “Emerged” (“acted non-being,” relative to itself), and thus the Vector of Chemistry began […] Then, the “becoming” of the universe could continue through Chemistry until Chemistry began “bouncing off” its own Ontological Impasse. “Pressure” gradually increased against this Impasse, and eventually another Emergence (“act of non-being”) occurred, bringing about Biology — on and on. Step by step, “The Vector Tower” so came to rise.

If the universe is everything, what constitutes “the impasse” or “limit” against which Subphysics hit? Before Physics, wouldn’t Subphysics be everything? Wouldn’t that leave “nothing” for Subphysics to “hit against?” An extremely good point, and certainly an Emergence is a very strange and rare situation, but our “magnetic dots” might help us metaphorically depict the moment when Emergence occurs. If it’s entirely misguided, please discard it.

Alexander Bard suggests that the universe did not start with dialects, but with a negation, so Subphysics may not start with an LO (I don’t know), meaning that the “first Vector,” if indeed Subphysics, perhaps “arose” to Physics not via a “vertical oscillation” as depicted below, but according to a negation (as Bard has discussed). After that negation, then Emergent Vectors could have arisen thanks to “vertical oscillations,” and for this reason I will depict Physics Emerging into Chemistry. The logic I delineate might apply to Subphysics “arising” to Physics, but I am not sure; it is possible that Subphysics underwent something more unique.

“Ontological Impasses” occur horizontally, per se, which forces movement vertically (up “The Vector Tower”). It is perhaps when a Vector “runs out of” creative possibility horizontally, and thus is forced to “Emerge vertically” in order to break the standstill (and gain new creative possibility through participation to itself and embodiment in the new Vector). Relative to the horizontal, the vertical is “a nonpossible route,” per se, which is a term we can associate with the “nonrational” and the “nonontological” (terms which I think can be associated with “transrational” and “transontological,” if one prefers). “Nonpossible” seems like a simile with “impossible,” in the same way “nonrational” seems like a simile with “irrational,” but what is “nonpossible” is conditional and relative to a given Vector. Biology is “nonpossible” relative to Chemistry, but that doesn’t mean Biology’s Emergence is impossible, only that it cannot be situated or located amongst the possibilities of Chemistry. Again, relative to Chemistry, Biology is nonpossible, but that doesn’t mean Biology’s Emergence is impossible. Similarly, we can say that the “processing” of Biology requires “nonrationality” and “nonontology” to grasp from the Vector of Chemistry, as we from Mind require “nonrationality” and “nonontology” to grasp Culture (assuming the Vectors of Mind and Culture shouldn’t be combined, as has been suggested is possible). Relative to Chemistry, we could say that Biology can only Emerge; it cannot be caused.¹⁰

Perhaps we could say that a nonpossible Emergence occurs when it becomes impossible for the “processing” of a Vector to continue and realize new creative possibilities. A situation where further Vector “processing” becomes impossible is an “Ontological Impasse,” and it is in this situation where the nonpossible is required, or the universe will begin undergoing effacement. When “processing” cannot advance, entropy will perhaps eclipse negentropy, as similarity/difference must begin to “lose steam” and fall into sameness and/or pure difference. In other words, Emergent Vectors can fall into the conditions where further “processing” is impossible and the probability of movement toward effacement heightens (however gradually or quickly) — suggesting that Hegel’s famous reflection on “the Owl of Minerva” may apply to universal development just as much as it applies to philosophical development (“the phenomenology of spirit” is universal). I’m not sure if Emergent Vectors must result at this point where effacement becomes most likely, but it does seem to be the point where the “nonpossible” can occur. The end is in the beginning as the beginning is in the end: worlds emerge at the brink of Apocalypses.

Alright, fine, but we are yet to have “the Emergent moment” (the movement of “nonrational vertical movement”) described to us. As we argued, the magnetic dots (which represent entities in a Vector) follow a “Leibniz Oscillation” between sameness and pure difference, and we described this oscillation magnetically (as based on Analysis of Situation by Anthony VZ Morley, an oscillation and “wave-form” which overlays with the work of Alex Ebert). “The moment of Emergence” is what I call “The Harmony,” and it can be represented as follows:

Each “dot” is evenly spaced, which is to say that they are all “the same” in their distance from one another and yet “purely different” in being utterly separated. Thus, we have a situation of “Sameness/‘Pure Difference,’ ” which was described in Section V as an Emergence Vector. Ah, well, that means if the depiction above is achieved in the Vector of Physics, for example, that would mean we have a “Vector in a Vector,” and that is a fundamentally unstable situation (for in both being Vectors, they have “the same charge”).

To resolve the tension of two “positive charges,” the Vectors must “push apart,” and that would mean the Vector of Physics “pushes up” the Vector of Chemistry, which means a new Emergence Vector arises.

I’m getting ahead of myself, but I think it is helpful to think of an Emergence as a nonpossible Event which can occur when further (horizontal) “processing” of a Vector becomes impossible (due to an “Ontological Impasse”). Basically, Emergences result when “it’s do or die,” which suggests a role and necessity for death. On this point, please note how “The Harmony” depicted above is a state of motionlessness, which suggests “death,” and yet effacement doesn’t occur. To use Hegelian language, it is precisely when the movement of “the dots” is negated that a sublimation can occur in a new Vector. To put it another way, when “horizontal oscillation” becomes impossible and is “negated,” so a nonpossible sublimation of “vertical oscillation” can (and must) occur if effacement is to be avoided. To stay Hegelian, progress must be progressive, but progress isn’t necessary.

The negation of the “horizontal oscillation” is “the sublimating moment” of “vertical oscillation” that then itself must be negated for the previous and new “horizontal oscillations” to (re)start. No “vertical oscillation” occurs while there are “horizontal oscillations,” as there is no “vertical oscillation” while there are “horizontal oscillations”: the negation of one is “the opening for” the other.¹¹ In this way, we can see “the negation of oscillation” as paramount for understanding the emergence of Vectors and “The Vector Theory” of Elung and Bard in general.

The “Emergent Vector”-situation, which I will call “The Harmony,” is incredibly rare, for it is incredibly unlikely that “magnets” (which, again, represent “dialectical relations of differences/similarities toward sameness and/or pure difference”) would organically organize in such a way that “the push and pull” they have on one another caused a profound standstill between entities and forces (please also note the paradox of calling an incredibly tense state, “The Harmony”). The “magnets” would need to balance out across an entire Vector, for otherwise there would be means of “escape,” and “The Harmony” would break apart. That said, perhaps sections of a Vector can “harmonize” while other sections still oscillate — I don’t know — “The Harmony” could happen all at once or gradually formulate. Regardless, the whole Vector must “harmonize,” which is a state when “magnets” pushing against one another cannot escape “horizontally.” They’re stuck. Force thus builds up, which is to say sameness and pure difference create force as approached (for where “ontological effacement” could occur, being and the universe “resist” that point). As “magnets” approach effacement, they are pushed away, but since the other “magnets” won’t allow the “magnet” to move back, tension builds, and the more tension builds the more it is forced toward sameness and pure difference. And then something breaks up (the nonpossible occurs):

An Emergent Vector happens when “magnets” and/or “entities” are somehow forced in radically close proximity with one another, as so forced by surrounding “charges” and “forces.” There’s then “no exit” horizontally, so to escape effacement, the “magnets” are forced to “pop up” vertically.¹² Sameness cannot exist without causing effacement, and so the magnets with the same charges will not stick together, but the more they are forced into proximity because of the surrounding magnets (which also have identical chargers), the more force the magnets build up. In this situation, the whole Vector functions “like a cluster,” as if a single unit, which would make it all the same. But sameness is sameness, as “pure difference” is “pure difference,” so the Harmony cannot maintain this state unless it either undergoes effacement or “arises to a Difference of difference,” per se — an Emergence Vector. In other words, the force must eventually break “vertically’ (or perhaps be directed “inward” into effacement like a blackhole). “The nonpossible” must occur.

To review, “Ontological Impasses” occur when the oscillation between “sameness” and “pure difference” ceases to realize new possibilities according to a respected Vector. The oscillations continue undergoing the negation/sublimations of their Vector’s processing as long as new beings “become,” but as this “processing” slows down or stalls, the “processing” “bangs up against” the “Ontological Impasse” until something rare occurs which provides “an exit” from the impasse, “an act of non-being” (“nonontology,” “nonrationality,” etc.). What occurs is a Harmony, the condition which generates an Emergent Vector.

The process of Emergence can be depicted as follows:

Entities follow a Leibniz Oscillation.

If they are not effaced, entities of a Vector eventually move into an extremely rare Harmony.

In “Harmony,” because of “Ontological Impasses,” entities can no longer move “horizontally” (ontologically), which means they must move “vertically” (nonontologically) or be effaced (which we can assume isn’t the case if we still “are”).

When this occurs, there is a new Emergence Vector (which itself isn’t a Harmony).

This new Vector then expands according to LO as the previous Vector “pushes back on itself” (note that the Vectors interact but never touch, maintaining irreducibility, a point which will be important for the section on intervectivity).

And thus the “Harmony” ends, and things return to normal, following LO, with the addition of a new Emergence Vector.

This process repeats up “The Vector Tower.”

This is a basic description of how Emergent Vectors could arise. I am not married to it, and Bard and Elung easily have far better models: this is simply how I, personally, envision “the moment of transition.” I like it because it incorporates Mr. Ebert’s work with the mechanism of LO precisely to generate the conditions of “The Harmony,” which cause “The Nonontological Event” of Vector Emergence. If it is unhelpful though, please discard it.

Now, there is still work to be done, for a number of questions are left hanging.

1. Does “something in” Subphysics “go into” Physics? Does that “something” become Physics (as “embodied”)? Does this mean “transcendence” is also a “transformation?”

2. Is there ever any (direct) “interaction” between Vectors (beyond the initial “vertical oscillation,” which is arguably not an “interaction” because the Vectors never “touch”)?

3. How is a Vector identified as “a new Vector?” How can we be sure that we’re not confusing “accidents” and “essences” (to allude to Aristotle). Can we only recognize a Vector after it arises precisely because it is irreducible? Since we can only “participate” in “higher Vectors,” does this mean “new Vectors” can no longer be identified? On this question, Alexander Bard notes that there ‘is a difference between a phase shift and a proper Emergence’ (1.12.22 IDW Email). Phases shifts are reducible, while emergences are not, and a key characteristic of a new Vector is ‘novel laws,’ which I would associate with “novel processes.”

4. Is it possible for “lower Vectors” to undergo another Harmony, or does that become impossible because of some “force” “higher Vectors” exert back on “lower Vectors” to keep them forever scrambled (and never at risk of effacement due to an “Ontological Impasse”)?

5. With the Emergence of Mind, is it the case that we can manually coordinate (some) “dots” into a Harmony, thus accelerating “the rate” of new Emergences? Would Transhumanism be an example of this?

And so on. Though we will not be able to explore the topic until “The Noumenon Frame” by O.G. Rose, though Vectors lacking Mind can only achieve “Harmony” or effacement, humans can be “toward” either Harmony, Singularity, or “Third Impact.” Forgive me for being vague, but if humans are to “harmonize” with being, we must be “toward” Harmony as Vectors themselves are “toward” Harmony. And when that “Harmony” occurs, we must Emerge — bringing us back to the topic of Transhumanism. But we have another topic to explore first, the topic of “Vector Interaction.”





¹⁰This point brings to mind the reflections on “ex nihilo” in the paper about Benjamin Fondane, “The Most Rational and Suboptimal of All Possible Worlds” by O.G. Rose. Basically, the idea is that only God can create, for only God can create ex nihilo, while humans can participate in “the image and likeness of creation” but ultimately only cause. Similarly, we could say that Chemistry can “create” Biology, while Biology can only ever “participate in ‘the image and likeness’ ” of Chemistry (at most, Biology could perhaps “cause” Chemistry, but never “create” Chemistry). However, Biology can “create” Mind, though Mind can then never “create” Biology, only perhaps “cause” it — on and on.

¹¹Please note how “vertical oscillation” is singular while “horizontal oscillation” tend to be plural.

¹²Perhaps it is theoretically possible for a Harmony to never cause such a “pop up,” or at least that’s something which could occur, which strikes me as either Paradise or effacement. If it ever occurred, we would not know it occurred, I think.




For more, please visit O.G. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, Facebook, and Twitter.



O.G. Rose

Iowa. Broken Pencil. Allegory. Write Launch. Ponder. Pidgeonholes. W&M. Poydras. Toho. ellipsis. O:JA&L. West Trade. UNO. Pushcart.