You are here

Variety of relationships and forms of connectivity


Contrarian Analysis as a Means of Avoiding Intelligence Failure (Part #7)


[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]


Connections and relationships: In a society in which connectivity is variously stressed, there would seem to be relatively little recognition of the variety of "connections" most generally understood -- in contrast with the extensive interest in the variety of interpersonal relations, and their value (Mere Abrams, 35 Terms That Describe Intimate Relationship Types and Dynamics, Healthline, 27 January 2020; Relationships: The Importance of Having a Variety of Relationships in Your Life, Maeeonline, 9 December  2022). On the other hand, the wider variety is suggested by the number of synonyms for relationship proposed online -- ranging up to 1,259. These include, for example: connection,  association, link, correlation, correspondence, parallel, alliance, bearing and interdependence.

From ChatGPT, the following distinctive connections were elicited:

The concept of "relations" or "connections" is broad and can be studied in various fields, each emphasizing different types of relationships. Here's an overview of some domains where the study of relations is prominent:

  • Mathematics: In mathematics, relations are a fundamental concept. They are used to describe and analyze the connections between elements in sets. Types of relations include equivalence relations, partial orders, and functions.
  • Set Theory: Relations are studied within set theory, a branch of mathematical logic. Here, the concept of a relation is often formalized and explored in detail, covering topics like reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations.
  • Graph Theory: Graph theory focuses on the study of relationships between entities represented as vertices or nodes connected by edges. Graphs can model relationships in a wide range of systems, from social networks to transportation networks.
  • Logic: Logical relationships between propositions are studied in logic. This includes the study of logical connectives (and, or, not), implications, and the structure of logical arguments.
  • Philosophy: In philosophy, relations are considered in various contexts. For example, philosophical discussions might explore relations between concepts, individuals, or events. Analytic philosophy often employs logical relations in examining language and thought.
  • Social Sciences: Interpersonal relations are a central focus in the social sciences. Sociology, psychology, and anthropology study how individuals and groups relate to each other in social, cultural, and psychological contexts.
  • Systems Theory: Systems theory examines relationships and interactions within complex systems across diverse domains. It encompasses a wide range of disciplines and considers how elements within a system are connected and influence each other.
  • Computer Science: In computer science, relations are used in databases, formal methods, and algorithms. The study of algorithms often involves analyzing the relationships between data elements.
  • Linguistics: In linguistics, relations between linguistic elements are studied. This includes syntactic relationships between words in a sentence and semantic relationships between meanings.
  • Physics: In physics, the concept of relations is evident in the study of fundamental forces and interactions between particles. Fields like quantum mechanics and general relativity involve intricate relationships.

Coaction cardioid: Presented in this way, the sense in which the relationship may be problematic in some manner is avoided. Of relevance in this respect is the generalization of patterns of relationship between species offered by Edward Haskell (Generalization of the structure of Mendeleev's periodic table, 1972), as previously discussed (Playing the Great Game with Intelligence: Authority versus the People, 2013).

Possible 8-fold Positive-Negative Hybrid Conditions
. . Y = "Control component"
. . Negative Neutral Positive
X =
"Work
component"
Positive predation
(positive negativity)
allotrophy
(positive neutrality)
symbiosis
(positive positivity)
Neutral amensalism
(neutral negativity)
O
(neutral neutrality)
commensalism
(neutral positivity)
Negative synnecrosis
(negative negativity)
allopathy
(negative neutrality)
parasitism
(negative positivity)

Yet to be further clarified is how contrasting "species" in nature are to be usefully compared to contrasting strategic "hypotheses". Haskell interrelates these contrasting forms of connectivity in a coaction cardioid, as discussed and illustrated separately (Cardioid Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart of sustainable relationship, 2005). The following comment (edited from several clarifying interactions) was elicited from ChatGPT with respect to the potential correspondence with logical connectives. (Oppositional logic and its geometry -- 16 minus 2 connectives? 2021)

Haskell's Coaction Cardioid, inspired by Christopher Alexander's work, presents an 8-fold pattern of relationships between species in nature (symbiosis, predation, etc.). Here's a speculative exploration of how this pattern might correspond to logical connectives, with some general insights into why these particular logical connectives might be considered relevant:

  • Intersection/Conjunction (AND): Describes a relationship where both elements are required or both conditions must be satisfied. In the context of species interaction, this could represent scenarios where the presence of two species is necessary for a particular ecological outcome. The intersection of elements in the Coaction Cardioid could symbolize symbiotic relationships, where different entities come together in a shared space for mutual benefit. This might correspond to the logical "AND" connective. (Represented by "000")
  • Union/Disjunction (OR): Indicates that at least one of the elements or conditions is true. In species interaction, this could signify scenarios where one species or another can contribute to a particular ecological process. The areas where elements are close but do not intersect might represent a form of unity without complete overlap, similar to the logical "OR" connective, where one or both propositions can be true. (Represented by "001")
  • Complement (NOT): Represents the absence or negation of a condition. In species interaction, this might indicate scenarios where the absence of one species has a specific ecological consequence. Distinct or separated areas in the Coaction Cardioid might correspond to a negated or complementary relationship, analogous to the logical "NOT" connective. (Represented by "100")
  • Implication (?): Represents a directional relationship, where the truth of one proposition implies the truth of another. In the context of species interaction, this might represent cases where the presence of one species influences or leads to the presence of another, similar to the logical "?" (implies) connective. (Represented by "010")
  • Biconditional (XNOR): Implies a bidirectional relationship, where the truth of one proposition implies the truth of the other, and vice versa. This could be relevant in species interactions where the presence of each species is mutually dependent. Areas where elements are connected bidirectionally in the Coaction Cardioid might signify a mutual or two-way relationship between entities, akin to the logical biconditional connective. (Represented by "011")
  • XOR (Exclusive OR): Implies an exclusive choice, where only one of the conditions can be true. In the context of species interaction, this might represent situations where the presence of one species excludes the possibility of the other. Distinct areas in the Coaction Cardioid where elements do not overlap might correspond to an exclusive relationship, similar to the logical XOR (exclusive OR) connective. (Represented by "111")
  • NAND: Indicates that the conjunction is not true, meaning at least one of the conditions is false. This might represent scenarios where the presence of one species prevents the occurrence of a particular ecological outcome. Areas where elements are not in intersection could symbolize a negated conjunction or a lack of shared space, similar to the logical "NAND" connective. (Represented by "110")
  • NOR: Represents a situation where neither of the conditions is true. In species interaction, this could signify scenarios where the presence of neither species leads to a particular ecological outcome. Distinct areas where elements are not in proximity might represent a negated union or a lack of unity, analogous to the logical "NOR" connective. (Represented by "101")
This analogy is still metaphorical, and it's important to recognize the distinction between design principles and logical connectives. However, exploring these connections can offer creative insights into the relationships between elements in both natural patterns and logical systems. The specific choice of logical connectives would depend on the nuances of the ecological relationships being considered. The goal is to use logical operators that accurately capture and model the dynamics of species interaction in nature.

The biological adage that every species is recognized as "another species lunch" suggests the relevance of a cognitive equivalent (recalling the rock-scissors-paper game described above). Clearly there is a case for exploring how distinctive modalities are related to one another in any theory of argumentation or discourse.

Correspondences: Another approach is through insights into "correspondences" (Theories of Correspondences -- and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking, 2007). Similar insights may be derived from systemic consideration of "equivalence" (Systemic Equivalences between Ebola, Alien Invasion and Dissidence, 2014).

During the Cold War, the moral equivalence of actions by the US in response to the USSR was argued to be a myth by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Â US Ambassador to the UNÂ (The Myth of Moral Equivalence, 1986). Later instances merit consideration, notably in relation to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan (Mirroring Global Moral Equivalence, 2010). Unfortunately for the US, any claims it makes regarding Palestinian responsibility for humanitarian tragedies, will be set against the claims made to the UN Security Council by Colin Powelll, as US Secretary of State, on 5 February 2003 which gave false justification for the Iraq intervention and its millions of fatalities.

From that perspective, US support for the Israeli argument will be recognized as undermining the credibility of that argument. The difficulty for those with unlimited resources -- with the power to lie -- is that it becomes impossible for them to prove the truth of facts they present. Technology now enables all evidence to be fabricated and manipulated, especially that in electronic form. Scott Ritter, using the comprehensive data accumulated by Al Jazeera, has offered a credible alternative narrative (Both Hamas and Israel could have reasons to hide the truth about the Al-Ahli hospital blast, RT, 20 October 2023; Video Investigation: What hit al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza? Al Jazeera, 19 October 2023).

Controversial commentary on the Israel-Palestine relationship with respect to Gaza may draw historical "parallels" with the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising -- yet another reminder that the "optics" may have far more consequences than the "facts":

The subtlety of such controversial comparison frames the potential symbolic significance of Masada to Israeli identity in relation to Gaza, as highlighted by various authors (Uri Avnery, A Gaza Masada? Counterpunch, 17 December 2007; Charles Harb, Israel-Gaza war: A new Middle East or a missed opportunity? The New Arab, 11 October 2023). For Khaled Diab:

The situation in Gaza is like a modern-day Masada, except the role of the Romans is being played by the Israeli army and the role of the Sicarii, the breakaway Zealots, is being played by Hamas.

Masada, Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto can be understood as entangled aspects of a "Masada complex":

Given the focus here on intelligence failure, another approach to requisite connectivity is through the analyses of the manner in which systems more generally can fail (Variety of System Failures Engendered by Negligent Distinctions, 2016).

Viable configurations of the disparate: The systemic generalization offered by Haskell with respect to ecosystems suggests that similar insights might be sought with respect to the viability of psychosocial systems. Rather than any single-factor focus, this could be explored in terms of viable configurations of the disparate and of patterns of "disagreement" (understood systemically).

The challenge is usefully presented in diagrammatic form as a circular configuration of 180 cognitive biases -- the Cognitive Bias Codex (below left). The larger set of cognitive biases can be tentatively configured in 3D in the following animations, necessarily raising the question of how they may be clustered and interrelated in any such mapping.

Cognitive Bias Codex
Circular configuration Tentative mapping of biases from the Codex onto 180 vertices of truncated truncated icosahedron (Animation) Tentative mapping of clusters from the Codex
onto 20 faces of icosahedron (Animation
Cognitive Bias Codex Animation of mapping of 180 biases from Cognitive Bias Codex on vertices of truncated truncated icosahedron Animation of mapping of 30 Codex bias clustes onto faces of icosahedron
By Jm3 [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons Animations prepared using Stella Polyhedron Navigator

Given the problematic nature of the disparate -- and its implications for violent disagreement -- there is clearly a case for eliciting systemic insights through which difference may be understood otherwise:


[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]