From CTMU Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Diagram 10: In the syndiffeonic diagram [Diagram 6], we can plainly see the containment of objects by the medium, but we cannot see the containment of the medium by the objects. Bearing in mind that the terms syntax and content are to some extent relative designations, the upper node in Diagram 10 corresponds to the global medium (global syntactic unisect or “metasyntax” of reality), while the lower node corresponds to the objects therein (syntactic operators contained in the medium); each is a multiplex unity. Coherence flows from global syntax into local content by way of global topological containment, thereby enforcing unity across diverse locales, and back to global syntax in multiple entangled streams generated by cross-transduction of content. Syntax becomes state, and state becomes syntax (where “syntax” is understood to encompass an “ectosyntactic” distribution of syntactic operators). The universe thus remains coherent and consistent in the course of evolution." - Langan, 2002, PCID, pg. 24

"It is instructive to experiment with the various constructions that may be placed on LS and LO. For example, one can think of LS as “L-sim”, reflecting its self-simulative, telic-recursive aspect, and of LO as “L-out”, the output of this self-simulation. One can associate LO with observable states and distributed-deterministic state-transition syntax, and LS with the metasyntactic Telic Principle." - Langan, 2002, PCID, pg. 46

“Anything not sharing the structure of L is inexpressible in L, and because L amounts to cognitive-perceptual syntax and thus limits perception and conceptualization on U, nothing is perceptible or conceivable which is not expressible in L. That is, the perceptual universe U, which coincides with the (time-dependent) coupling L|U and the inclusive metaobject domain {L|U} forming the universe of M (the syntactic metaverse), contains nothing which is not in structural correspondence with cognitive-perceptual syntax L; U is entirely embedded in L as perceptual content, and secondarily, as inferred properties and relationships of perceptual content. The mapping may thus be contracted, retracting U = L|U = {L|U} entirely into L and leaving M:L.”