Share this:

This page summarises some findings derived (2010) from the PhD theoretical study, through several sections (scroll down):
    The Problem of  Knowledge Transfer between physical and human domains
    ‘Lack Of High’ inverted logic
     Building the Fabric of Reality
    ‘Figuring’ to gauge versus ‘Figuring out’  problems & solutions

The Problem of Knowledge Transfer between Physical and Human domains

This can occurs between physical and human sciences, between biological medicine and medical biosocial statistics, in opposing  body and mind,  or material/technological and social/humanist interests, etc.   The Phys-H symmetry between these two general domains is expressed in countless contexts, and causes conflicts out of not understanding the geometric implications of a horizontal symmetry.

The core problem: valuing is inverted.

The best example of this is at the junction of medicine and personal development. What is good for someone’s life in society (e.g. ‘pushing oneself’ into peak performance) is not good for the body’s health; it requires activation of the survival mechanisms and this is a strain for the body. The result can be more stress.

Why does this matter? Because then the mind must activate neurotransmitters to calm the survival mechanism, and this results in a vicious cycle for the body-brain, despite being a virtuous circle for the mind and self in society, and makes the whole system more susceptible to stress states, inflammation, and degenerative disease.

For example, due to differentiating, and t

Transferring strategies from physical science to the human mind or self, results in a global effect of mutual reinforcement, and ‘pushing the envelope’. This may be good for the mind and social life (e.g. seeking dominance/success or being recognised as the best), but not necessarily good for the body’ long term viability. The reverse may be true too. This is a horizontal symmetry.

What is ‘improvement’ in one of the domains is a worsening in the other domain, and vice versa.

Culture and academic scholarship have a tendency to do this systematically, passing on knowledge between Physical (or material) and Human (or mental) domains, inducing the spiralling trap in which humanity is now caught.

Transferring from theory to practice and then observing practice results to theorise does the same, causing logically circular auto-validation of both theories and practices.

Specific and general knowledge keeps being transferred back and forth: from physical sciences to explain human phenomena, then human findings are re-transferred to physical sciences to prove that the human phenomena are ‘natural’ , then back to the human  domain to justify that the ways of ‘human nature’ (both ‘light’ and ‘dark’) ‘have to’ exist and cannot be any other way, for the sake of human existence, then back to the physical domain that  explains this as a natural process of species survival. This alternating not only rides on a circular logic to prove human assumptions and physiological pre-suppositions about body and health, and justify habitual and habituated behaviours (Homo Sapiens is now a domesticated species called ‘Human’], but it turns into a spiral  that ‘goes viral’, spirals out of hand, what is now called ‘Acceleration’. This cycling up into spiraling is a long-periodic process in the deployment of civilisation and that of human health.

One result is that in health and medicine, nearly all our strategies aim to and operate a ‘high’-jacking of both brain and mind to ‘make the body work‘, to the detriment of its basic biological soundness. (See proto-health).

In terms of physical and mental representations, it appears to make sense, but topologically, this is an auto-reinforcing strategy that simply leads to flaring crises and eventually, ‘falling apart’. The ‘Fall’ of civilisation and human health to ecologically endangered status is not really what anyone wishes, is it?

            Building the  Fabric of ‘Reality’

Mathematical physicists investigate the nature and  shape of the universe and its time-bound fate. The human literature is concerned with the nature of ‘reality’ as perceived by the human mind (see PhD apprendix F15). In 2022, these approaches are merging, and popularised through Youtube videos from mathematical physicists, neuroscientists and psychologists. Neuroscience prompts questions about the origin of the mental ‘virtual reality’ built in the brain and interpreted as a ‘story’. On the other hand, the humanities, increasingly concerned about individual survival in competitive business-based society advocate that people need to learn to use the ‘story’ value of such virtual reality to communicate with stories to influence; this is justified using spiritual traditions and the ancient Aboriginal stories that helped locate physical resources,  as a uniquely human characteristic. Some even use ‘quantum’ to explain how to ‘create one’s reality’ and make it real as a success story.  However, these accounts are based on physical sensory construction of perspective and mental processes, particularly imagination, without explaining how this works, where this leads, taking into account the oral tradition Creation Myths, or the primary role of the self-surroundings separation (or duality) in all this.

The two most fundamental parameters of representation

The two most fundamental parameters of  representation in perspective used to create our views of the world  (see PhD thesis chapter 7, p.170-171) are symbolised as N2dual- and N3polar- , representing  Direction and Motion, or orientation and polarisation,  or projection and activation; here are many other names for this same set. The most generic names found  in Western deep philosophy are: Axis Mundi and Primus Movens, both relating to anthropology, myths of Creation, and artefacts, symbols and behaviours (think of totem poles and Tibetan wheel of life). Both parameters are formulations of topologic ‘orienting’ (one connective, one operational), and both bifurcate in the frameworks of ‘physical’ and ‘human’.

Generic notion:  Axis Mundi (vertical)     [N2dual]          Orientation to Sur-vival     (bifurcates into 2 Di-rections)

Generic notion:  Primus Movens            [N3polar]          Rise                                    (bifurcates into Activation-Deactivation

We use these parameters in sensory, mental, intellectual and many other types of representations. They can be used separately or combined, and they are derived from our vertical posture and senses.

An image will give an easier impression of how these generic notions relate to representation, sensory and mental, and acquired names in philosophy – Axis Mundi (e.g. related to the totem pole in the tribal village and to phallic interpretations of symbols) and Primus Movens (related to animism and various interpretations of life, life energy):

Technically, theses can be simplified to this:

In combination, they construct a ‘nexial’ topology that cannot model what is not patterned nor activated. (e.g. fluid change in both a system and its environment that make small adjustment). A ‘nexus’ is akin to a whole, an object, body, or self, which are surrounded by an ‘external’ — this creates a System-Environment separation. Typical are self/body-world,  and (us)humans-nature ‘out there’.

Here is an equivalent of this geometric construction in gesture:

Examples of  forms or shapes derived from these parameters, by dimensional geometric projections that reduce, and combinations that integrate. These operate in every domain we represent:
sphere, plane, line, point;
here-there, now-then, me-mine-myself, inside-outside
dualistic ‘black & white’, vitalist ‘life energy’
surface, bubble, barrier – Boundary
critical events in complex-adaptive, non-linear systems
Wiggle and circle are also lower-dimensional geometric projections of the spiral
etc. In 3D, they look different.

How we deploy the frameworks of representation

The first order of deployment (logical order, or geometric dimension) manifests surface phenonmena. The simplest to apprehend is the notion of ‘flows’, i.e. an oriented motion.

Philosophies of reality or life use many words that signify ‘deployment’, such as ‘appearance’, ‘extension’, ‘localisation’, ‘activation’.

Such maps are generalist views in perspective (above the arc), which yield the ‘advanced’ or integrated explanations of experience, but also the ‘fundamental problems’ of theory, and the ‘global emergencies’ of the world of humans. They leave in the shade some less differentiated, generic, ‘basic’ processes of representation, considering them ‘non-existent’, as well as what they can model.

Etymology is full of archaic remnants of such understanding based on topology:

The map in figure 1 represents what the mind does: it puts the situation in perspective.

The forms of representation can be classified in 2 broad categories:
· localisations and projections, [geometric, spaces]
· extensions and attributions,  [explanations, rationalisations]
and 3 types: · anthrophomorphic · physikemorphic · spiromorphic (e.g. DNA, spiralling,  the archaic ‘snake’ in stories)
Languages of all kinds possess a bewildering array of words and realistic or naturalistic expressions to signify forms, shapes, topographies or maps, and their changes.
But “The map is not the territory“, and the name is not the thing. 

From a course of ethology:  http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol261/Ethogram/EthoBody.htm#Catalog

<In your field work, you first must characterize the range of behaviors you see… Distinguish between what you see and what you interpret as consequences. Define behaviors in terms of the animal’s actions, and not the perceived function. For example, if a squirrel buries an acorn, it should be described as digging, placing an acorn in the hole and covering. It should not be described as “storing food”. The latter is a perceived function – it may be very reasonable as a  hypothesis, but it is an interpretation rather than a direct observation. One of the hardest lessons of animal behavior is learning to avoid projection > (e.g. of adaptive function or anthropomorphism).

Adaptation for survival is a widespread framework of thought and interpretation of the behaviour of living bodies,  especially in medicine and psycho-social sciences, but is only that: an interpretation drawn from biased observations of animal behaviour, an assumption made by humans (usually, whose experience and physiological condition makes them feel that life is all about surviving and the hard work of adapting, and hence think in this biased way).

Some examples from theoretical literature

-Spiromorphic: Sc-H-‘natural’, ‘Life’, definition of ‘Human’ and ‘Human Pressure’ (ecologic,: population economic or emotional); this is represented by the notion of spin, spirals or cones. But also critical spiralling up-and-down: Spirals (up or down, or both, or left-right): dark side, dark energy, ‘Below’, the endless pit, primary or secondary, underlying or overarching, origin or end, source or growth,  hidden or dark, mysterious or veiled; This framework is further differentiated through notions of ‘process’ of (de)formation:
-Distortion, deformation, disturbance, knots, inFormation, resonance; ‘self-organised criticality’ in mathematics
-Generative bindings & processes: infinite growth, exponential expansion, evolution, unfolding, opening, maturing, sprouting, spreading,
–Development & re-developments, with counter-productive effects of degeneration, deterioration … and ultimately:
–Scatter: cloud, vapour, mist, noise, fragmentation, disintegration…
– Endless paths of expansion or spreading: past, latent, potential, possible (or impossible), or a future, endless path towards an ‘inside’ centre, and ‘soon’ on track (e.g. eternal promises of Progress)
–Drifts such as semantic drift, epigenetic drift, and other such slow or hidden progressive changes changes with EX-plosive beginnings
· Extension: expansions in many forms: unfold & enfold, envelop, wrap up, misfolding
· Boundary & surface phenomena: (this is where topology helps)

Topologically, all these phenomena involve operational limits and connective limitation in boundaries. They are represented by:
· Localisation: placed in a timed-space  directional activation; a combined operational-connective boundary (not separating them) produces ‘climacteric’ phenomena – those ‘not well understood’ in medicine, ‘mysterious’ in human sciences, and altogether problematic because solutions reverse into inverted effects and into problems, and this goes in vicious circles, sometimes with an inverted  valuation that deems them virtuous cycles (with inevitable, normal, necessary or ‘natural’ damage and disasters).
· Compaction (1 integrated whole, or ‘one’, ‘full’): universe, world, ‘the earth’, systems, organisms, subjects, objects, things, bodies, recognisable or ‘sensible’/sensory patterns of activity, selves, identities, entities, ‘things’ and their ‘coalescence’ or ‘concretion’. Topologically, a compaction reduces what presents by 1 order of dimension, so it can be represented, and drawn geometrically. For example, a ‘ball’ becomes a ‘sphere’ with a limit surface and an inside (usually represented by shadowing in perspective). This view is the inverse of the perspectival interpretation that these are ‘expansions’.

· Tearing (holes, empty, ‘zero point’ or 0): core (a 3-dimensional notion),  or 0-dimensional point or centre, or a wormhole, or a 1-D staff, tree trunk, directional vertical axis (arrow), etc. In the traditions, this is also called ‘passing’ a gate or door or The Eye, and now 0-D point of no return (e.g. irreversibility), or a breakthrough or emergence, etc. This is either positive and wanted (human domain) or, in physical sciences, a catastrophe or collapse, a danger related to chaos, entropy, a risk that comes with disorganisation that might not re-organise, etc., and in medicine the one thing, irreversibility, that cannot be treated.

Both ‘1’ and ‘0‘ are problematic in advanced mathematical models (they cause the ‘bad behaviour’ of equations), yet the notion of ‘one’ and ’empty’ are crucial to the building of logics (they are the root, source, origin, and end of the ‘fire in the equations’).

This table [click on link] details – clumsily – how topologic ‘orienting’ is projected in various ways of deployment, development and redevelopment, according to various parameters related to space(s) and time or timing, sequential, simultaneous or sudden. The ultimate result of these deployments without undeployment is an ungrounded view that looses awareness of basic biological living at human scale. 

All these are just a small part of how humans build the ‘Fabric of Reality’ in the mind (re-presentations), and come to actually create it ‘in The World’ by their actions, actions and mental discoveries governed by these representations (with attached assumptions and presumptions) rather than based on what actually presents. See the PhD thesis for more details.

Inversion

An easy way to model this very generic notion is to use two images:

All our ‘wholes’, systems, objects, subjects, worlds real to the mind, physical things perceptible to the senses, etc. are, topologically, ‘bubbles’  with an inside separate from an outside.  Bubbles  are disconnected from (or unaware of)  the baseline or surface from which things ‘start’ or initiate, and grow. This is often called a ground or foundation. Bubbles are topologically ungrounded, and this manifests in a number of unchallenged assumptions and fundamental presuppositions that exists in our cultural representations (‘life’ as ‘survival’ is one of them).

In a topologic space, the sphere above represents not a ‘physical’ existence of matter, or ‘real’ to the mind, but properties of operational and connective integrity that are gained by binding, in both the physical and mental realms. In a situation, which may include a human animal and its ‘lifeworld’, there is no ‘baseline’ state, but a ‘rising up to limit’ that can be induced, but with detrimental consequences as well as  constructive ones: productive effects come with counter-productive effects, and this constitutes disturbance to a biological entity (organism, environment).

How can we stop the spiralling up of all the bursting ungrounded bubble-‘wholes’ that are topologic ‘holes’ tearing the fabric? Topology in its basic geometric form can show how human actions can stop shaping situations into pressuring to rise and imposing deployment. There are basic options that can resolve situations without pushing deployment, especially that  of inherently anthropocentric survival mechanisms. Binding or gluing fragmented piece does not quite reproduce the original entity.

Not all can ‘rise up to the sky’ without damage
 Theorists tell us “we don’t know how to stop it all”
Integrated bubble-wholes are, topologically, holes that tore the fabric

Modeling topologic inversion has a very useful feature for medicine

Two illnesses may display almost the same panoply of symptoms, with a high degree of similarity, yet an inversion can be in indicator of two  different orders of gravity (e.g. reversible dysfunction vs structural damage) and make al the difference between reversibility and irreparable damage leading to death – this is a very useful tool for differential diagnosis.

For dose-dependent effects of medications, it can also point to whether a high or low dose may have constructive or destructive effects, stimulate or suppress. This is more useful than a humanities evaluation of good-bad or ‘treatment resistant’, and more systematic than the guesswork of doctors. A patient’s knowledge of their degree of reativity to medications may denote an unconscious reliance on the basic geometry of biology; and  doctors could learn to recognise this. The patient’s  geometric understanding could be recovered into a  more conscious awareness.

 The inverted logic of ‘Lack Of High’

An internet website (not scientifically reliable)  says, very seriously, that “bad vision is caused by lack of good glasses”. This is very simple misunderstanding of the basic logical concept of implication – reversing it does not work, is not valid. Here is another example: “Just because aspirin may cure a headache, does not mean that a headache is caused by a lack of aspirin”… or a personal “failure” to take it.

In the domain of health, the problem of erroneous logical reasoning is compounded by the fact that most concepts of ‘health’ refer to survival and adaptation, but this does not account for a loss of integrity in the basic physiology. This has caused for about 200 years many alternative medicine practitioners to explain that, in this situation, it is the ‘Foundation’ of health but not a personal failure to adapt that fails or that only the surface of health (symptoms) are addressed but not the ‘original cause’ or the cause ‘in the first place’. Confusion comes from the fact that this ‘first place’ is not ‘in’ the material/physical ‘system’, but in the ‘interaction between the system and the environment’.

What this means, in my way of looking at things without differentiation, is that the ‘First place’ is topologic. It is a matter of topologic deployment. Society has organised itself to convey the ubiquitous message that not deploying survival mechanisms sufficiently is ‘bad’, ignoring the consequences for the body. For example, smart children are pushed into the ‘high’ functioning of brain/mind and into STEM careers without caring about what sitting at computers all day, even in school, might do for their health and future aging.

We smile at the above statements… yes, but far more seriously and reputably, medicine says similar things:
-that cold body temperature in middle aged women is ’caused’ by low thyroid – when in fact the patient is ‘euthyroid’; the cause is elsewhere;
-that the profound physiological instability of menopause, or the deep bodily damage in post-menopause are ’caused’ by lack of sex hormones (specifically oestrogen, the most deployed and cancer-inducing) – how were females ever healthy in pre-pubertal childhood?
-that children ‘will grow out of’ their illnesses and diseases, implying, and sometimes even stating overtly, that they ‘lack’ the ‘full human’ (meaning ‘adult’) capacity to produce stress and sex hormones, and therefore it is viewed as ‘natural’ for them to be sick… –  makes you wonder about who decided that being sick is natural, in childhood, and increasingly from mid-life on, when production of these and just about everything else reduce.

This logic is nothing new: this kind of inverted logic also leads societies to consider people with diffuse symptoms as somehow ‘incapable’ or even ‘impotent’ or weak or lazy, and both physically and morally ‘lacking’, and this (1) denies adequate medical treatment and (2) has countless harmful social consequences for the patients who seek help because they do not understand what is happening to them: the conventional explanations do not work, and medicine offers no alternativce, nor society.  The problems of flaring syndromes and societal exclusion have been spreading in the population of developed countries since I completed my research, and could not obtain the Scienctific Community to even examine my findings.

What is new is that this logic is now ruling even science and medicine. It is also common in psycho-social fields and politics, where poverty is attributed to a ‘lack’ of good decisions or of making choices (wether in the external societal life or in the intermal psychology that defines the self) — these ‘executive’ functions are higher brain functions: the ‘lack’ is a ‘Lack of High’ function – a lack of topologic deployment of ‘higher’ functions.

These judgements have always been discussed, in terms of morals, ethics, elitism. etc., but the issue does not resolve that way. These problems are not purely physicval or mental: they involve pressure to deploy High functions, ignoring that this productive ‘high’ comes at a cost, that of counter-productive effects.

Philosophers have also noticed inversions , without being able to explain them, such as the general cultural shift between goddess that became god in antiquity, wisdom that became knowledge and the archaic period. Cultures, civilisations, and daily practices are full of such inversions, but we do not notice their profound signification and consequences, because cognition is reduced out of the understanding of simple geometric forming (‘shaping’) and not compensated by educating the mind to orders of logic (or geometric dimensions). One field seems aware of the negative impact of inversions called  ‘psychological projections’, but this relates to ‘selves’ rather than geometric symmetry.

Inversions also involve anthropomorphic reifications and physicalised localisations when they are described with various languages (mathematics tends towards mental abstractions). A few mathematical scientists and philosophers have tried to warn against the shifts due to  teaching theorems without their basis in geometry, or due to point-set theory, generalised systemics, or  semantic distorsions of perspective due to linguistic expressions development etc. One should add the generalisation of systems theory, and the mathematisation of topology (shifting from small distortion to large transformations).

Yet the cognitive mechanism involved is quite simple, and easy to understand if the processes are modeled with topology in the basic form of the ‘Rubber Sheet Geometry‘ of small distortion, modeled by a real human mind rather than the limited dualistics of computer-based counted topology models, or the dualistic, linear mind of the ‘2D Screen of the Mind’.

The major consequence of interpreting the state that is out of bubbles and surface as ‘below’ the surface is to classify those who cannot ‘rise up’ on a permanent basis as ‘low’ or ‘below par’, and to include here the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ body as ‘shackles of biology’, and make the Homo sapiens species, originally one form of wildlife now and extinct species replaced by the domesticated ‘Human Social Animal’ that relies on civilisation and technology. This has led to the body and animals being considered a ‘lower’ form of existence, to exploit rather than care for. It also results name-calling those of low IQ as ‘sub-human’, ‘sub-achiever’, and in keeping the ‘below’ people… below the ‘poverty line’ and other social standards, and by extension, all of these as ‘unworthy’ of the labels ‘Adult’ or even ‘Human’ or ‘fully human’ (and this includes children). Labels of worthless, faulty, at fault, ‘your fault’, etc.  are inflicted upon them, and with them denial of respect, help or support, and of having any ‘value’ to Society and others.

This is particularly visible in cultures that tend to activate ‘spirited’ behaviour to a high degree, physical or mental, in which the general attitude becomes one of elitism and  of Exploitation-Exclusion of those who have a ‘Lack Of High’ activation in one way or another, or cannot keep ‘up’. Cultures focused on survival power create a similar elitism by devaluing those less driven by self-centered survival. This totally ignores the deep contribution that lesser topologic deployment can make to avoiding crises and loss of integrity.

For some consequences of both this logic and of only representing in perspective, view the video:

The Topologic Thinking Space (video animation mp4 7mn20)

An example of inverted logic of ‘Lack Of’ in health frameworks

Some consequences of the inverted logics of ‘lack of high’ affect many people. They are fascinating in that the inversion, once conceived, can be ‘proven’ in the physical domain,  and found experimentally in the brain or in the genes. One of the most typical evaluation of ‘lack of high’ resides in the medical and psychological diagnoses and biased  judgements  and treatments of people with flaring syndromes of instability with diffuse symptoms. See the 2 Cas de Figure in syndromes. 

In bio-psycho-social medicine, another concerns the biochemical conversions that deploy the catecholamines, which many confuse for the stress hormones of the Cortisol type (steroids). Here is a view of the inversion:

The bottom spiral corresponds to physical stress reactions (awake, alert, alarm) that deploy according to chemical conversion paths of biosynthesis. Physios in particular often focus on reducing this deployment (the spiral), to ‘return to a relaxed state’.

The top spiral corresponds to the neurotransmitter, cognitive and socio-emotional roles of the catecolamines active in strain and stress. These are deployed in an inverse order : adrenaline agitation is ‘sublimated’ by focusing it on some mental or social task, which brings rewards, and cortisol ‘comes into play when stress lasts too long’ or tasks are intensely demanding, according to popular explanations. The sublimation is a common automatic and unconscious behaviour people adopt when sources of pressure and stressors cannot be controlled or at least reduced –  there is no choice, then but to ‘push further’ to get some calm back; but this is not always possible or cannot always last without deep damage.

The inverted top view leads many socio-medical scientists to attribute to human selves moralised labels of ‘maladapted to stress'(or lacking purpose), which caring clinicians do not inflict on patients already feeling ill. This is viewed as a ‘lack of’ brain power to cope with stress (or learn to or even ‘choose’ to), to control the body’s physiologic survival reactions [ignoring that in some organs this cannot be consciously stopped because there is no innervation for that]. These labels are psychologically very impairing, and unfair: they ignore other abilities that are present in those who do not ‘keep up with stress’ easily (e.g. knacks to work with animals, plants, or small children, supporting their thriving).

 he major problem resides in the inversion of values. Transfering the moral-human evaluation back into a physical judgement of brain dysfunction (which ignores bodily states), leads to the biologically ungrounded ‘brain balancing’ framework, which then is taught to doctors, with major pharmaceutical/neutraceutical industry enthusiasm. This framework is based on the approach that has widespread the use of anti-depressants and anti-convulsants (and antibiotics). Both constitute, topologically, ‘activations’ of the brain. They ultimatly promote the ‘spiralling-up’ in an auto-reinforcing manner, rather than ease it, as it appears to conventional dualistic thinking that it should (looking only at the surface: a + and a – should cancel out, ‘balance’ out… but they sometimes lead to bipolarity).

Inverted logic is also the source of the spreading habit of doing medicine with ‘anti-‘X substances, sold to the public as a ‘good for you’ standard (e.g. anti-oxidants), irrespective of metabolic/biochemical individuality or a person’s actual state (e.g.: is the state actually critical? Is there actually a virulent disease germ requiring emergency anti-biotic treatment? etc.). The same habit is also widespread in psychology, social institutions, education, etc.

Literally ‘figuring’ to gauge VS. ‘figuring out’ problems/solutions

Basic topologic modelling is a way of  ‘gauging’ globally, that is,  a way of (literally) figuring how a situation ‘presents’ by using animation, often in gesture, something small children do. Most adults have learned to translate this into more conventionalised expressions (linguistic/discursive, mathematical/algorithmic, logical/symbolic, imaginal…), and thus limited what their gestures express. One difference is that between literally ‘figuring’ the situation, modelling it, and ‘figuring out‘ the problems and solutions, or its  fragmented parts or multi-factorialor aspects. The ‘out’ in the languistic expression is significant, symbolic of the ‘Up-/Ex-/Out’ axis of deployment.

Some examples of modern scientific and archaic philosophical uses of language in this manner are collected into a long table in the thesis and book that introduce the method. When we feel that daily life or collective entanglements (‘stuck’) are leading nowhere useful or pleasant, or end up falling into ‘dark places’, or making things fall apart and be wasted, we intuitively use this animated geometry of mind and experience, of perception and proprioceptive  sensation. The words recall directly a vast store of ‘obscure’ statements that are difficult to understand in conventional terms, and were already considered so in archaic times. They often baffle scholars, have no clear explanation about their source. As a rule of thumb, this is a vocabulary and an imaging of situations that are apprehended as urgent, critical, requiring emergency measures. They arise again in culture, in long cycles, every times our ‘human world’ goes too far and becomes wasteful of both physical and human natures, becomes counter-productive, and looses grounding in non-critical existence. As a means to represent a ‘primitive’ kind of apprehension, it is a very practical method for daily life, especially for decisions under high pressure.

This method can also be used to understand what others mean even if we do not have the same general perspective and way of interpreting reality, or do not live in the same social world. It can be used to understand a medical condition to which medicine can attribute ‘no clear cause’ or when medical books and papers state that a phenomenon is ‘not well understood’. It can be used to simply understand one’s own life and behaviour, know what’s coming, where the patterns come from, and what to do, when there are no ‘facts’ or specific emotional involvement to reach decisions.

This method has no equivalent in other frameworks. The ‘basic’ options it brings do not rely on discernment or differentiation and therefore does not require an educated mind.

The non-critical option: reducing pressure globally

As a general strategy, the basic options avoid having to ‘push too far,’ and anything that ‘leads off track’. Deployment leads systematically to drifts and to breaching limits. Topologic modelling helps avoid the counter-productive effects of ‘pushing it’:

-auto-reinforcing spiralling (despite some of it taking the form of virtuous cycles, they correlate with vicious ones)
-over-deployment by re-development
–fragmentation or scattering, wasting and consuming (both planet and body)
–endless paths that never quite reach their ‘potential’, ‘possible’, or ‘future’ goal – the paths of deployment are geometric asymptotes, not goals
-reversals, and returns (for example treatments that turn out, in the long run, to not have had permanent effects;  development operated  somewhere and counter-productive effects elsewhere or later; returns or reversals that gall into extremes just as much as the original situation)
–pressures that directionally lead off-track (they look like ‘soon reaching’ a way to be on-path or on-task or ‘on-track’, but that is because there is an unrecognised baseline).

This method  allows to model without distinction, in particular, ‘pressure‘, including ‘human pressure‘, whether it is ecologic (on ecosystems, animals, and lifestyles imposed on human bodies) or economic, or in various other forms, social, intellectual or philosophical, etc. 

‘Staying on track’ and not ‘pushing’ (or pushing ‘too far’) involves not creating these effects of re-deployment, (not pushing it, even if we can) and keeping a grounding in what is not under pressure, and therefore does not require reactions of compensation, adaptive patterning, or extremes.  These are achieved in ‘raising’ children and ‘normal’ behaviour: body/behaviour-taming practices of physical ‘conditioning’ by effort and the normal ‘health’ that is compensatory, regulated or modulated; civilising practices by habituation, by cultural programming, to ‘keep up’. educational self-programming (internalising the collective injunctions, integrating them into an ego and biased personality) and constant reprogramming through societal stress and the survival mode of strained existence? What is living like without these strategies?

The method of nexial topology brings out another way of dealing with pressure: not raise it. It shows how ‘basic options’ can reduce it globally, without distinction of how it manifests in particular problems (and their correlate solutions) or aspects. It shows how they allow deployment but not re-deployment, which always ends up going too far. This basic geometric topology can describe partly the same thing as conventional frameworks, but with less fragmentation (here lies one of its useful aspects), but also with less discerning detail (which is why it can in no way replace conventional representations, knowledge, or practices). Yet, its ability to describe something that is not shown by other frameworks opens access to a number of systematically neglected options  that cannot be represented with our frameworks.

As basic as not ‘over-extending’ and ‘not over’-taxing resources or capacities