constant escape
winter withered, warm
Thanks to @catalog 's suggestion regarding psychotopography, I got to reconsidering the psyche- element, attempting to focus more on ideology, which seems to be best encapsulated in ismos, which is usually used as the suffix -ism. Thus psychotopography becomes ismotopography. Still needs work, perhaps.
What was, and is, to be done? To device a manner of accounting for ideological difference in perspective, that is, the difference of values and value systems. How one situation can register with different values to different observers.
This difference in values is to be expressed across two axes, with minimal loss of robustness. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
These two axes, X and Y, combining to form a plane, will map out the territory of ideology. Good talk on this forum about maps and territories. A point on this plane denotes a unique ideology.
These two dimensions are interchangeable. The ones I used were the best I had to work with, but I'm sure there are better ones. The point is, again, to capture as robustly as possible the complete variation of ideology, using only two dimensions. In this case, the axis of destabilization/stabilization (X) and the axis of hindsight/foresight (Y). Whether or not there needs to be an axis for time and an axis for space, I don't know. It occurred to me, and I thought I'd throw it in.
The axis of destabilization/stabilization measures what one thinks of the current status quo, what their ends are. Should it be tweaked, overhauled, demolished? Or should it be reinforced as it is? As far as I can tell, deterritorialization and territorialization work here. Given this is something of a materialist measurement, it is correlated with space.
The axis of hindsight/foresight measures where, temporally, one turns to to learn how to effect their desired ends. Do they tend to learn more from tradition, or do they tend to novelty?
The four quadrants generated by their two axes are as follows:
New manners (Y+) of stabilization (X+)
Proven manners (Y-) of stabilization (X+)
New manners (Y+) of destabilization (X-)
Proven manners (Y-) of destabilization (X-)
There is a third dimension, but a special one, one that isn't interchangeable like X and Y. This is the measure of how many different perspectives one can appreciate/understand.
At the top extremity we have monopia, "eye/sight that sees one", which knows only one perspective. This is virtually impossible, seeing as nobody has such a clean and singular view (unfalsifiable claim here: I'd argue that they harbor unconscious ideological forces that "spread" their perspective slightly, or vastly, across the board).
At the bottom extremity, we have panopia, "eye/sight that sees all", which knows all perspectives, and is thus rendered ambivalence, practically spectatorial. The tenability of this position is, I'm inclined to say, impossible. In order to thoroughly understand all perspectives, one needs to have completely straightened any ideological leanings.
The "tentpole of ambivalence" for the lack of a better term, is the set of all possible ambivalent perspectives. This set is actually a vector, seeing as it includes direction as well as quantity. What direction? The "lower" ones position on this tentpole, the wider range of perspectives they can understand. At the surface, or the topmost extremity/point of the tentpole, one's position of ambivalence amounts to little more than indecision, whereas at the bottom, their ambivalence is the dialectical sublation of all possible perspectives.
I think it would be cool to make a more ornamental diagram here, but this should suffice in delivering a functional representation.
The most important aspects:
The Z dimension, of perspectival plurality, is fixed, whereas X and Y are interchangeable. They are interchangeable because we are always liable to find more robust maps of ideological difference.
This is called the Ismopticon because it is a tool, a tool for understanding (an epistechnique). By arbitrating a position on this map, the user can simulate/extrapolate upon the ideology that is represented by that point.
How to use it? Pick a topic, ideally one with a robust variation of value across people's opinions. Then pick a point on that top XY plane, and determine how that perspective would consider that topic.
A statistical quibble: While expressing a person's ideology as a point, no matter how robust the axes, we risk being reductive. However, if we express their ideology as a spread across the plane, with concentrations in some areas and absences in others, such a spread can be collapsed, statistically, into a single point by way of averages/weights/etc (things I don't know, yet alone know enough to explain).
This tool, as a lens of subjectivity, may allow us to better investigate, through a secondary lens of intersubjectivity (a certain logoscape, theory in the works), our objective environment: noise.
Once this layered optic device is built, the stage for nootopology should be set, and solving complex problems should be much easier. But those assumptions are built on many ambiguities, my own pride being one of them, and perhaps things are not so straightforward.
What was, and is, to be done? To device a manner of accounting for ideological difference in perspective, that is, the difference of values and value systems. How one situation can register with different values to different observers.
This difference in values is to be expressed across two axes, with minimal loss of robustness. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
These two axes, X and Y, combining to form a plane, will map out the territory of ideology. Good talk on this forum about maps and territories. A point on this plane denotes a unique ideology.
These two dimensions are interchangeable. The ones I used were the best I had to work with, but I'm sure there are better ones. The point is, again, to capture as robustly as possible the complete variation of ideology, using only two dimensions. In this case, the axis of destabilization/stabilization (X) and the axis of hindsight/foresight (Y). Whether or not there needs to be an axis for time and an axis for space, I don't know. It occurred to me, and I thought I'd throw it in.
The axis of destabilization/stabilization measures what one thinks of the current status quo, what their ends are. Should it be tweaked, overhauled, demolished? Or should it be reinforced as it is? As far as I can tell, deterritorialization and territorialization work here. Given this is something of a materialist measurement, it is correlated with space.
The axis of hindsight/foresight measures where, temporally, one turns to to learn how to effect their desired ends. Do they tend to learn more from tradition, or do they tend to novelty?
The four quadrants generated by their two axes are as follows:
New manners (Y+) of stabilization (X+)
Proven manners (Y-) of stabilization (X+)
New manners (Y+) of destabilization (X-)
Proven manners (Y-) of destabilization (X-)
There is a third dimension, but a special one, one that isn't interchangeable like X and Y. This is the measure of how many different perspectives one can appreciate/understand.
At the top extremity we have monopia, "eye/sight that sees one", which knows only one perspective. This is virtually impossible, seeing as nobody has such a clean and singular view (unfalsifiable claim here: I'd argue that they harbor unconscious ideological forces that "spread" their perspective slightly, or vastly, across the board).
At the bottom extremity, we have panopia, "eye/sight that sees all", which knows all perspectives, and is thus rendered ambivalence, practically spectatorial. The tenability of this position is, I'm inclined to say, impossible. In order to thoroughly understand all perspectives, one needs to have completely straightened any ideological leanings.
The "tentpole of ambivalence" for the lack of a better term, is the set of all possible ambivalent perspectives. This set is actually a vector, seeing as it includes direction as well as quantity. What direction? The "lower" ones position on this tentpole, the wider range of perspectives they can understand. At the surface, or the topmost extremity/point of the tentpole, one's position of ambivalence amounts to little more than indecision, whereas at the bottom, their ambivalence is the dialectical sublation of all possible perspectives.
I think it would be cool to make a more ornamental diagram here, but this should suffice in delivering a functional representation.
The most important aspects:
The Z dimension, of perspectival plurality, is fixed, whereas X and Y are interchangeable. They are interchangeable because we are always liable to find more robust maps of ideological difference.
This is called the Ismopticon because it is a tool, a tool for understanding (an epistechnique). By arbitrating a position on this map, the user can simulate/extrapolate upon the ideology that is represented by that point.
How to use it? Pick a topic, ideally one with a robust variation of value across people's opinions. Then pick a point on that top XY plane, and determine how that perspective would consider that topic.
A statistical quibble: While expressing a person's ideology as a point, no matter how robust the axes, we risk being reductive. However, if we express their ideology as a spread across the plane, with concentrations in some areas and absences in others, such a spread can be collapsed, statistically, into a single point by way of averages/weights/etc (things I don't know, yet alone know enough to explain).
This tool, as a lens of subjectivity, may allow us to better investigate, through a secondary lens of intersubjectivity (a certain logoscape, theory in the works), our objective environment: noise.
Once this layered optic device is built, the stage for nootopology should be set, and solving complex problems should be much easier. But those assumptions are built on many ambiguities, my own pride being one of them, and perhaps things are not so straightforward.
