[text in process]



Every organism is an instance of sentience as much as an experiencer and expresser of it, and any given assembly of organisms at any scale we may select is alike in this regard. Thus any single organism is as much an instance of the sentience of its world and environment as it is ‘a participant’ or ‘individual’. I use the term to mean organismal relation with self, others and environment in a very general and informal sense, and I wish to highlight the precedence of non-locality and scalability in my usage. Most of sentience, and its infinite dimensionality is fundamentally relational. Subtract relation, and there’s not much left to discuss.

I consider sentience to be an assembly-event shared across every possible scale and dimension, more than it is a ‘property possessed’ by a given organism or assembly. I share the perspective that sentient beings of any possible kind are sacred, as this is my own direct experience, and in general I include in my own understanding a precedence for linked genesis and purpose over ideas of competition and individuals.

To my eye, the sophistication of a given instance of sentience is directly proportional to the complexities of relation and symbiotic unity that empower and sustain it. A lot of its source lies in dimensions we do not credential — hyperconnective dimensions which have more to do with spirit than science or biology.

Additionally, sentience assembles itself from a vast multiplicity of simultaneous ‘scales’ or domains of size, speed, and relation. The human being, a complexly representational sentient, is amongst the most delicate and malleable of terrestrial instances of animalian sentience for precisely this reason: we are ‘hyper-relational’, and imaginally relational, as well as being animalian cognitives. We experience and express changes in other beings as changes in self — emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually.

I believe the purpose of our species is deeply involved with this, in a way akin to how our own immune systems are involved in sustaining the life of our extremely complex physiologies: we are the only species complex enough to be capable of protecting all other species, and the animalian biosphere itself. I consider this to be one of the fundamental reasons planets produce representational cognitives such as human beings. Yet all scales of life are sentient, and their assemblies reach ever beyond our models of sentience, into dimensions of relation so intimate and complex that they comprise hyperstructures which lie completely outside the sum of our models.






Classically defined, cognition is sentience with additional domain of self-aware thinking. This requires a representational substrate, thus excluding all non-formally-representational organisms.

I use the term to refer to the transports and ‘knowing modes’ of organismal relation as they relate to formal and informal symmetries, and the recombinantly co-creative dances that therein arise to embodiment, conservation, and enaction. I believe this to be the activity of instances of a hyperstructure which transcends local presence in timeSpace, and is as inclusive of contexts, histories and transports as it is emergent from or with(in) any given participant. It is my perspective that non-representational organisms may act as agents in cognitive symmetries which are unavailable to our study because we cannot adequately conceptualize them yet.

The living realities of organisms are so hyperbolically miraculous in their real character, purpose and activity that the sum of our sciences, fictions, religions and myths combined appear pallid and contrived in comparison. Our models are miniscule and reductive compared to what they point to, and the antidote to this is direct contact, and unified experiential exploration of these anciently evolved and ever-so-delicately conserved gardens. The cognitive behavior of organisms (in general) represents an emanative recapitulation of something which is ‘preternatural’ or spiritual in nature — if one unlinks matter from structure and it is revealed to be energy. Unlink organisms from their structure and they are revealed to be vessels for a flow that is shared amongst them. Cognition is the activity of myriad scales and dimensions of vessels in relational and cooperative emergence.






In general, this term refers to organismal activity which assembles itself into knowing, whether at the scale of human metaphoric cognition, or the chemico-energetic sentience of cellular organelles. I see it as the purposeful and organized behavior of organisms active in problem solving, relational restructuring, or otherwise identifiable progress or defence, beyond what we might expect from simple evolutionarily-inspired behavioral paradigms. The model supposes that human cognition is not as significantly different from biocognition and is a peculiar outgrowth of it involving exceptional focus on representation. Biocognition has little in common with our models and metaphors, which are in general too flat (antiscalar) and unipolar in their perspectives. It is not locally ‘housed’ so much as it is locally assembled, expressed, and enacted — thus any organism has transports and organs which are not local in time or place, and is a living reflection of the activity of these transports as well as those of localized, formal or semi-permanent character.

Environment is an organ of biocognition, and is consistently optioned by all participants as a form of extrinsic ‘memory’, such that catastrophic changes in environments (which always occur at multiple simultaneous scales) are akin to ‘inheriting a stroke’ in the sense of a severe and often irreversible loss of conserved memorium-stratas. Human beings are amongst the most sensitive creatures in terms of their inner relationships to environmental change; for our own cognitive basis is assembled in both the real and the metaphied world of our experience and reflections on it.

The term lays precedence on a vast spectrum of scalability, and should generally be understood to refer to multiple simultaneous histories, scales, locations and participants emerging in synchrony as and with(in) any instance or assembly of organismal experience. We speak of the body as comprised of cells, but the actual symmetries in question have many scales and extend beyond the individual deeply into history, the environment, and the future.

It is a perspective that leads into the possibility of modeling atemporal hyperstructures of living beings, rather than being forced to focus on individuals — and as far as animals are concerned, assemblies of impossible complexity are most often what individuals are.





I use this term to refer to a being or symmetry of beings who are psychologically bio-cognitive, like humans. We are biological, cognitive, and psychological to the degree that we may choose to evaluate the functions of our own minds according to principles belonging largely to that discipline.

I believe all organisms possess, experience and express analogs to our ideas about ourselves, such that if we experience ourselves as possessing psyche we can be certain its progenitors and catalysts are present at every scale of organismal embodiment and relation — however primitive they may appear at our own scale. In general it is my experience that this apparent primitivity is more akin to impossibly generative momentum than it is to something worthy of any denigration due to seeming simplicity.

What we refer to as the psyche — an element of the emotional and memory-based hyperstructure of a human being, is observationally present in even the simplest animals — and is in fact an outcome of historical relations and common co-emergence, which insure that environment, participants and relations are a single animal by the activation of emulative and responsive reflection amongst these three. I suggest that this feature of cognition is present at every possible scale, and in transports between any possibly distinct element or assembly as well. In this case, an organism is psybiocognitive in that it experiences and expresses a form of meaning-relation based in identity and memory, it is biological (not an artifact), and it is cognitive — to be what it is is to be engaged in knowing as action.

A machine which can function and sustain itself may be technically cognitive (it can demonstrate goal-based discernment), but the identity and biology aspects of such a construct cannot be more than simulations. An organism is never mechanical, the metaphor-mixing we commonly agree to sustain breeds atrocity as quickly as it breeds ignorance of our own natures and potentials.

All organisms are essentially psybiocognitive hyperstructures — and I am experientially convinced that complex animals and especially humans fit this sort of model more than they do our concepts of ‘animal’ or ‘human’. The term is a melding of emotion, memory, circumstance, identity, biology and cognition — and refers to the source-character of the awareness of organisms, in general and complex or distributed organisms in particular.




Representational Cognition / Cognitives:

Organisms are cognitive, sentient and embody and express many forms of intelligence. Some of these forms are general, and shared by all organisms, others are unique to the size, scale or function of a given organism or sub-class of them. Many animals have and display what we consider to be rudimentary representational skills, yet it is not their habit to assemble universes around the conserved artifacts of representational consciousness. In this our species appears unique — at least if we believe it is a possession we somehow acquired. I do not find this to be the case, and believe that the whole opportunity to have representational consciousness, in terms of biology and cognition, is the result of incredibly diverse relations with organismal environments and participants of many kinds. I believe our human consciousness is the result of the environments we are immersed with(in) and that the complexity of our consciousness is directly related to the biodiversity and intellectual diversity we encounter moment-to-moment.

Representational consciousness is a property emerging from our ability to metaphy, and the character of our associations with metaphor, which generate the peculiar and preclusive schemas which are our only choices in terms of ways to assemble meaning and value. Fundamentally this involves the establishment of an imaginal universe or ‘bag’ if you will, in which various forms of assembly and relation take place such that the contents of the bag are practiced, relationally elaborated and conserved. Formal memory precedes thinking, and thinking will always emerge once such memory is regeneratively established.

Essentially we found or were able to invent a kind of inward mirror — and in this mirror we play with toys that allow us to distinguish entities and momentums, ascribe them values, and ‘parse’ our experience through the multiply recombining lenses of metaphor and relation-schemas. The topologies and linkages in our imaginal universes are representational, in that they utilize metaphors as vehicles for meaning-content, and also for communicative conservation, i.e: culture.

The arisal of a representational cognitive on a diversely populated planet is and has been a direct threat the to biosphere itself, and to the entirety of the animalian populations of our nursery for at least the last 1000 years, and has become so virulent in the last 150 so as to constitute a global extinction event. It is not so much that this form of consciousness is ‘bad’ or wrong, but rather that there are modes of relation with it that function more as disease than intelligence-lens, and our species has a subtle predilection for precisely this species of relationship in these dimensions. Since the inception of our ability to metaphy we have struggled with elemental questions about our sources, purposes, the meaning of separation and death — the fundamental questions which our form of consciousness is prone to assemble. Generally we presume these questions unanswerable, and are scripted in industrial cultures to replace them entirely with mimetic analogs.

In acquiring this inwardly reflective dimension, we accrued potentials far beyond our capacity to understand or apply intelligently. Like an infant given something that can create or destroy many universes rapidly, we have been fumbling in the darkness of our own models far too long. Adeptly understood and explored, the potentials of representational cognition are an impossibly profound gift of access — but if we are purposefully divided from their sources and the organismal intention that assembled them in terrestrial biohistory we are forced to make models that oppose not only our progress but our very experience of what we are and may become.

To understand the potentials of this acquisition we must re-model their sources more accurately, and preferably continue this process indefinitely. Our common models infer that precedence lies in the individual in terms of consciousness, and yet the truth is far beyond this flat perspective — especially because habits of relation rapidly emerge as biocognitive attenuations in the structure of the organism. Environment and organism are ‘more than unified’, and any participant we may select is as much an instance of environments as it is an individual being. Representation in our imaginal universes implies false separations for the purpose of establishing distinctness. When we allow these separations to become dogmas and ‘knowledge’ we have been conned by the spurious sophistication of the toys we use to explore these gardens. Yet there are many other ways of directly experiencing and relating with these cognitive momentums, and we can together easily discover and remember our common abilities and heritage when we have new models and perspectives to play with. Gaining access to how we assemble knowledge grants us immediate skills that are extremely flexible and general — they comprise a key that unlocks something we as yet have no metaphor about except in poetic or spiritual terms, and it is akin to access to a living library existing as a sort of garden outside of time.

For better or worse, our species is Earth’s first and only complexly representational cognitive. We must understand the perils and opportunities inherent in this circumstance from the most inclusive of perspectives — and the only perspective of that nature is one which continually expands, preferably exponentially, and in a growing number of domain-perspectives. This activity we agree to and sustain is a form of cognitive division/distinction which is at as explosive in terms of reproductive progress as it is aggressive in acquiring, dominating and holding terrain. The terrain in question is our world, our lives, our cultures and our experience because we enter these gardens in order to assemble meaning of every possible sort — but especially value comparisons such as those we depend upon as the foundation of our entire panoply of problem-solving modes.





We must distinguish between human intelligence and that of other sizes and forms of life in that our human criteria for intelligence have to do with representation, memory and creative linkage of disparate tokens, transports of relation and contexts. Animalian and organismal intelligence is far more sophisticated than our representational variety, such that the awareness of the organism in coupling with its environment produces inordinately adaptive symmetries in response to circumstance. It is not inordinately fascinated with the production or preservation of tokens in general.

Nonrepresentational intelligence is sophisticated in profound excess of even our most ‘advanced’ models, and its power in this regard lies in generality. Too often we allow our ideas about superficial complexity and size to inform our judgments of merit, when in fact simpler and smaller structures have many benefits the vaster collectives depend upon for their moment-to-moment sustenance and apparant sophistication. My perspective is that the general intelligence embodied in a single organelle in any common cell is likely to vastly exceed the sum of mechanical intelligence our species could ever produce. This implies that most if not all of our most fundamental suppositions about these topics are catastrophically misfounded, which is my direct experience.

We might generally define intelligence as an attenuation-game between an organism or assembly and a challenge of some sort. This relates it directly to the domain of parsing and resolving matters of connectivity — sometimes called ‘problems’. The sensing, testing, engineering and enaction of intelligent responses comprise the realities to which our ideas of intelligence refer, and we must be cautious not to prefer our models to direct observation of what they refer to only vaguely.

In human terms, because we are representational cognitives, we are vulnerable to a situation where our intelligence violates the essential meaning of its own definition in that it becomes a direct threat to our own survival. This can only happen with an artifact, and is extremely uncommon in the non-simulative intelligence of other organisms on Earth. Simulation then, bears with it incredible opportunities and deadly threats. The opportunities must be sifted from the threats, and we must never allow mimics of intelligence to own the terrain of our real potentials for exploration, unity and understanding. They far exceed every example we have ever seen embodied, and it is crucial that we are equipped to discern a mimic from a transport in this domain, since the majority of the garden is solid mimic in our time and circumstance.

By this I mean to say that human ‘ways of knowing’ are, like organisms, self-interested — and our history is a long record of our consistent inability to gain ascendance over the power of our own value-models and simulations of circumstance. We must not allow modes and toys of knowing to rule out our ability to far exceed them, for in every case this is not only our potential but our desire and our destiny.

True intelligence is inclusive of all possible forms and transports of learning, meaning and knowing. It caches little, and spares no time for making copies of reproductions of copies of things. Just as a good vehicle will dissolve and lead to a far better vehicle faster with each cycle, so too will real intelligence disdain artifacts in favor of access, for in such activity the very source and heart of prodigy are everpresently renewed.




Terms relating to representational consciousness:

Semantics is a tool. When applied as a paradigm to populations via the transports of enlanguaging and enculturation it deploys hidden threats whose nature it is to occlude their own presence. Cognitive Activism deals fundamentally with the principle that it is possible to re-establish direct experiential contact with the sources of learning and knowledge by more deeply understanding how we form concepts.

In general this requires we re-model our concepts about concepts, and include a few positions that our modern understandings exclude or deny. By creating and exploring new metaphors about what metaphors are — we change the very foundations of our own representational consciousness, as well as our access to cognitive and unitive potentials which are so vast as to comprise an undiscovered universe of opportunity and novelty.

When we have access as cultures and a species to the foundations of how we assemble our paradigms and schemas of relation, our natural animalian intelligence is free to co-operate with our evolutionarily conserved representational intelligence. The result is far more than explosive, and puts the sum of our wildest and most openly speculative ideas to shame in comparison.

When we do not have access to new ways of understanding and expressing our own representational consciousness we invariably suffer the silencing, atrocity and erasures that result of elementally misconstruing the toys we use to distinguish, value and compare. having this access returned is the cognitive equivalent of gaining wings, filled with eyes.

The following 6 terms relate to these and related concerns directly.





Without hypostases there is no such thing as knowledge, names or ideas — the ‘concept’ of associating a formal structure with an extant circumstance or object is itself a hypostasis. But there are many unique ways to achieve this, and the characters and features of the ways we select and celebrate together prescribe the characters and products of their outcomes when enacted.

Before we may perceive or reflectively relate with any kind of imaginal assemblage at all, we must first assemble a vehicle of sorts — a kind of ‘crystal ball’ which acts as a both a lens and a filter. It reduces incoming stimuli and the essential organismal character of what is perceived until a sort of doll remains — and then it highlights this reduction as having meaning--value precedence over that which it is a reflection of. It is with the repetition and elaboration of these kinds of activities that we gain the deceptively simplistic precursors which lead on toward complex representational intelligence — the form of reflective awareness which we believe differentiates us from animals.

When we speak of our hearts as an inward dimension where emotion ‘is the authority in truth’, we recall the more elaborate and complex figurations of earlier civilizations who had many such inward organs — nearly all of which were considered staging areas for the assembly of non-human and non-local channels of intelligence.

A hypostasis, then, is a kind of bubble — and to form it requires that we employ a membrane of some sort — as when I distinguish a flower from the ‘great everything’. The character of these membranes defines the elemental functions and connectivities of the bubbles they enclose. All the myriad ways of making, storing, recalling, trading and sustaining these bubbles converge at a variety of scales: the person, the group, the family, friends, a nation — the planet, &c. At each scale, each instance is entirely unique, yet at the same time generally alike with all other instances.

The sum of these comprise our modern lexicons — and our ways of knowing. Taken together, these appear to be our most fundamental references of comparison, acting as ‘measuring devices’ in the non-ordinary dimensions of meaning, relation, value, &c. If these are authentic, they result in prodigy when enacted. If our lexicons are instead primarily mimetic, they consume intelligence and worlds when enacted.

In general, a vehicle for the manifestation or conservation of an imaginal symmetry of any sort.

0: A size-speed-form of embodiment. A star is then a hypostasis of it’s parent-scale, the galaxy. Humans and other organisms exist as biocognitive hypostases of the Terra-Sol family. Living worlds such as Earth give birth to and sustain biocognitive hypersystems as ‘organs of knowing’, and we in turn create imaginal hypersystems [terms, conceptual lexicons and such] in similar fashion.

This perspective is a metaphoric gloss on the related concept of hyponomy (hyponyms) in linguistic terms; i.e. Apple is a hyponym (subinstance) of Fruit.

1. A reductive vehicle for the conservation or re-presentation of circumstance, experience and identity. All ‘terms or concepts’ are hypostases first, and conceptual only in relation to their functions as vehicles for the assembly of meaning.

Semi-organismal in basis due to their dependance upon animalian hosts, hypostatic entities have ’life’ in the dimension of human biocognition (seen as a unified field). Thus conceptual hypostases act somewhat like organisms in the environment of human cognition — the cogniscium of our species. This means that they actively compete for resources, attention, terrain (human minds and action), and reproductive opportunities.

This perspective has some features in common with the theories of memes.

2. A real or imaginal vehicle, such as a doll, idea, word, mathematical term, metaphor, &c — seen from a more general perspective. Such vehicles are used to assemble, test and store knowledge, ways of knowing, and agreement about the meaning and necessities of human existence.

3. An internal stage, where psychoemotional figurations come to life and proceed through various adventures of relation, comparison and development. To speak of ‘my heart’ as ‘a kingdom of emotion’ is to associate an imaginal universe with an inward ‘place’ in the body — real, imagined, or both.

Long ago it was believed that each person was an assembly of hypostatic organs — so to speak — where celestial intelligences would contact and advise, strengthen, weaken or inspire them. The chart referenced above refers to the Greek hypostases as they developed over time, according to the perspective of Julian Jaynes. It tracks the development of these inward dimensions as they evolve from nearly pure experience toward ‘spaces’ within the self that are eventually ‘integrated’ or ‘owned’ by the individual.





A uniphore, like the term universe is a term intentionally used to describe everything. Child, ‘that which is seen’, and God are examples of common uniphores. The surprising fact is that what we call ‘the subject’ of a sentence is often a way of speaking about everything at once — yet we pretend not to notice this, and thus the idea of a uniphore is not common in communication, even though it is constantly deployed.

It is likely that during the early uptake of representational cognition in our species the primary meaning-gestures were uniphores, akin to the holophrases of young children — terms used so generally that they primarily act as vehicles for the character used to express them, rather than pointing to a particular thing, event, or circumstance in a the way our later verbalizations do. By expressively varying the character of the referential gesture, one can refer to everything at once, and still be referring to a specific aspect of theEverything.

Holophrases are preserved throughout life but acquire sophisticated meaning and relation values as we grow more deeply encultured. When we use ‘cool’ to enthusiastically indicate some quality sought or admired we are using a holophrasic technique, although the tem ‘cool’ is not precisely a holophrase in this example. A uniphore is the precursor to formulating a holophrase, which is a precursor to metaphication and representational intelligence.





A holophore is a term that there cannot be other terms without. Hidden in our languages are root semantic elements without which formal language collapses. Holophores commonly have unique meanings for each person and culture, such that, for example ‘animal’ may mean something similar to many different people — but the personal meanings for each are entirely unique as much as they match a schema. Similarly, the ‘sum’ of a holophoric entity from any culture of any size will be at once entirely unique, and also akin to a generalized ‘definition’.

An example would be the idea of connectivity. Without connectivity, we cannot metaphy at all. Relation is another example. Without relation the entirety of all human lexicons dissolves. Perhaps the most fundamental single concept to all of human language is separation. It turns out that what we think we mean by this term informs and prescribes nearly all potentials of any lexicon we may assemble or enact as ‘knowing’.

Thus it is that certain terms aren’t merely terms, but the roots upon which language, logic and comprehension are founded. This circumstance leads onward to the exploration of a set of ‘first concepts’ somewhat akin to a child’s syllabary.

All lexicons have root elements which are required to found their progeny upon — and whose meaning and relational characters establish the character and function of the lexicon. The first 10 numbers are an example of a mathematical codice of numeric holophores. They are necessary precursors, have an order of arisal, and none could be suddenly ‘done away with’ — in general — without destroying mathematics as we understand it.

If we were to follow the penetration of representational cognition in our earliest ancestors (who could in fact be cellular) we would find that the ability to conceptualize is based upon an incredibly small assembly of significant experiential elements. Once established, this basis is painted with poetic or relational meaning, and becomes a metaphor — or concept. It is then folded and recombinantly intra-reflected as these lexicons elaborate, which is their nature in representational cognitives like ourselves.

Let’s return for a moment to the holophore of ‘separation’. Without this seemingly simple idea — there could be no other ideas — for we would be unable to distinguish betwixt entities of any sort in any dimension. What this means is that the character of our ways of communicating — even our reasons — inherit the character and meaning-relation aspects of our take on ‘what separation means’. If we have a fundamental misunderstanding about separation — of any kind, in any dimension — this misunderstanding will be folded, translated and explosively magnified in all of our other ideas, terms and ways of knowing. Such a circumstance resolves in catastrophe: the artifacts of the error soon overwhelm any native general accuracy, and intelligence itself collapses, crushed by the necessity of sustaining self-magnifying errors over something more akin to actual relational intelligence.

If we had a complete and ordered tree of the first 12 concepts required to assemble our common forms of representational consciousness [a relatively simple thing to produce], we would see something akin to the lineage of primordial holophores from which human metaphors arose over evolutionary time. Each of these would, with a few exceptions, be simply a way to say ‘everything’ (a specialized uniphore) — from a unique instance of character (filtering) and perspective. The meanings attached to them — primarily the informal and thus hidden meanings — are folded and filtered to produce the seemingly endless barrage of concept that is our modern human heritage and perhaps too often our burden.

The meaning of this is at least as shocking and useful as anything that could ever come from physics: when we modulate our agreements about the meaning of a holophore — we are literally changing what species of mind we are an instance of. Inaccuracies in our agreements about the meaning of holophores form the hidden basis of our metaphors such as ‘god’ or ‘animal’. When these roots are misfounded or too severely abstracted, this error is grossly magnified by our common or cultural ‘foldings’ of these holophores into metaphors, understanding, and action. The result is commonly atrocity, founded in absurd relational understandings built upon even more absurd ‘pseudologics’ — particularly those that drive war.

For example, if an ‘animal’ is a ‘mostly disposable mechanical process’ then it is a simple matter to exterminate or torture them en-masse without any more remorse than one might experience throwing away magazines. Similarly virulent forms of this resulting myopia are active at the roots of nearly every possible flavor of human wrongdoing, particularly those of cultures who punish the victims of their own abusive paradigms with silencing, imprisonment, torture, rape, genocide and cognitive if not physical extermination.

The understanding and exploration of the power of holophores in establishing or changing our elemental access to our own intellectual and cognitive potentials comprises an entirely new frontier in the domain of learning systems and our species’ relationships with language and meaning. The power to know and intentionally modulate holophores in small groups is the power to change a world.

Some common holophores: Separation, Metaphor, Love, Time, Space, Hand, Organ, Animal, Distance, Light, Gap, Star, Planet, Universe, Family, Cell, Eye, unityThing, Character, unityPlace, unityWay, Connectivity, Holophore.




Metafication / Metaphying :

To metaphy is a hypostatic act of inventing or presenting to self or others a concept which stands for some aspect of perception or theory. When I point to the brightest thing in the clear mid-day sky and say ‘do you see the Sun?’, I am asking about many more dimensions than are apparent, and ‘making names’ about phenomenon is part of this process. Agreeing about names is another.

So when we make a metaphor for a phenomenon, we are making what we consider a ‘term’. To do this is to metaphy, and the process is metafication. If we say ‘it’s snowing’ we are metaphying our experience of the weather by relating to a previously cached metaphor. This is a first-stage rendering of a descriptive gesture, as opposed to a second-stage rendering such as ‘snow is like floaty rain’ — which is a simile including the metaphor ‘snow’.

Metaphication is discussed in greater detail in the essay: What Are We?





The product of the metafication process. A toy of conception and a vehicle for the communication of conception, assembled from previously cached metaphors and foldings of holophores linked according to a generally formal paradigm. A fundamental difference in my use of this term is that I use it to indicate a cognitive organism, as much as a toy of reference. It is my experience that ideas and ways of naming or knowing are cognitive organisms at the scale of the individual, culture, group or species.

There are many scales of metaphor, and the term is used very generally in my work — for example there is the human metaphor of ‘desk’ and there is the way that any terrestrial organism is a biocognitive metaphor in the solar-terrestrial hyperstructure. Metaphor itself, is a holophore, and changing our understandings of what this means — what can be done with such things — grants unique forms, speeds and scales of intentional access to this radically alters our intelligence, potentials of learning and our consciousness. Classically speaking if we say the clouds are fluffy gods we are making a metaphor and if we say the clouds are like fluffy gods we are making a simile. Both are considered figures of speech, but I use metaphor to mean something much more general and closer to ‘vehicle of reflective knowing’.





I see these as second-stage metaphors which refer by including an extant metaphor and establishing likeness. It is a more obvious recapitulation of the process of metaphication, and is generally informal in expression and application.




[close this window to proceed]