Bio-poetics

Towards a Deconstructive Empiricism

These are the lecture notes from a six session seminar on the philosophical perspective that I have come to call “biopoetics”.

Session 1: Processes of Becoming

Becoming precedes being. A being becomes what it is before it is what it is.

But there is also another sense in which becoming precedes being. We are beings in a world full of other beings, and every being in this world, ourselves included, may eventually cease to be. A being’s ceasing to be, however, does not put an end to its becoming. Becoming does not stop where being starts; rather, becoming proceeds alongside being, from start to finish, and becoming continues to proceed after beings cease to be. In this way, becoming not only precedes being—it also exceeds and succeeds being. Whereas a being is a momentary product, a becoming is an enduring process.

I shall define three different kinds of processes of becoming in this session: phylogenetic processes, ontogenetic processes, and heterogenetic processes. There are, no doubt, other kinds of processes, and, what’s more, the three kinds of processes which I shall define here are only distinct from one another in theory rather than in practice. That being said, however, theoretical distinctions can and should inform, transform, and enrich practical matters, and I invite you to judge the distinctions that follow accordingly.

Phylogenetic Processes

Phylogenetic processes are processes of speciation, processes that group existing beings together to form species, classes, races, nations, tribes, personas, and other populations with stable identities. Phylogenetic processes determine what kinds of beings have come into being. For example, the process by which a number of individual life forms are grouped together to form a species—such as ours, Homo sapiens—renders each individual life form a specimen of that species. Species do not pre-exist individuals; rather, species arise from the sampling of populations of beings.

Phylogenetic processes, therefore, feed on ontogenetic processes—that is to say, they produce species of beings by processing beings that have already been produced by ontogenetic processes.

Ontogenetic Processes

Ontogenetic processes are processes of individuation, processes whereby indeterminate potentials are actualized in determinate ways such that individual beings come into being. Ontogenetic processes determine why and how precisely an individual being comes into being. Consider, for instance, the process by which an individual life form develops, actualizing indeterminate potentials in a more or less determinate way.

Ontogenetic processes, in turn, feed on heterogenetic processes—that is to say, they produce beings by processing potentials that have been generated by heterogenetic processes.

Heterogenetic Processes

Heterogenetic processes are processes of potentiation, processes that generate indeterminate potentials. Heterogenetic processes (re-)generate the indeterminate substrate from whence beings come into being or, in other words, they are the processes through which pre-individual potentials (i.e., potentials for “beings likewise” and potentials for “beings otherwise”) come into being.

Heterogenetic processes are auto-cannibalistic—they feed on themselves, processing the very same potentials that they produce as they produce further potentials. They are also an-archic: one cannot predict whether a heterogenetic process will produce a potential to be likewise or a potential to be otherwise, and, what’s more, there is no way to determine whether the product of a heterogenetic process—a succeeding potential to be likewise or to be otherwise—was produced via the processing of a preceding potential to be likewise or a preceding potential to be otherwise.

Three Ecologies of Existence

For purposes of illustration, I will treat the three processes of becoming with respect to three different but interrelated “ecologies of existence”: first, with respect to biogeochemical ecologies; second, with respect to behavioral ecologies; and third, with respect to cultural ecologies.

Biogeochemical Ecologies

It is easiest to treat the three processes of becoming with respect to biogeochemical ecologies because I have employed the language of the biological to describe the three processes of becoming.

Phylogenetic processes are the processes of biological selection that create different varieties of life.
Ontogenetic processes are the processes of biological individuation that create individual life forms.
Heterogenetic processes are the geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for life.

Genes, the dividual units of life, are always indexes and indications of genetic processes rather than fixed determinants of biological becoming.

Ethological Ecologies

What the genetic is for biological ecologies, the memetic is for ethological ecologies. If I had employed the language of behavior instead of that of biology, I would have spoken of phylo-memetic processes, onto-memetic processes, and hetero-memetic processes.

Phylo-memetic processes are the processes of behavioral selection, which create different varieties of behavior.
Onto-memetic processes are the processes of behavioral individuation, which create individual behaviors.
Hetero-memetic processes are the biological and geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for behavior.

Memes, the dividual units of behavior, are always simulacra and simulations, as well as indexes and indications of memetic processes.

Ethnological Ecologies

What the genetic is for biological ecologies, and what the memetic is for ethological ecologies, the epistemic is for ethnological ecologies. It follows that, if I were to employ the language of the cultural rather than that of the biogeochemical, I would speak of phylo-epistemic processes, onto-epistemic processes, and hetero-epistemic processes.

Phylo-epistemic processes are the processes of cultural selection, which create different varieties of custom.
Onto-epistemic processes are the processes of cultural individuation, which create individual customs.
Hetero-epistemic processes are the behavioral, biological, and geo-physico-chemical processes that create potentials for custom.

Epistemes, the dividual units of culture, are always symbols and representations, as well as indexes and indications of epistemic processes. Some epistemes are also simulacra and simulations—these are “analytic-and-aesthetic epistemes” or “synthetic epistemes”—while those that are not simulacra and simulations are called “analytic epistemes”.

Conclusion

These three ecologies—biogeochemical, behavioral, and cultural—offer distinct but interrelated registers for thinking about the processes of becoming. Whether at the level of life, behavior, or knowledge, becoming does not occur in isolation; it is a dynamic interplay of potentiation, individuation, and selection. Through this framework, we can better grasp that becoming not only precedes being—it is the very condition through which being emerges, persists, and transforms.

Session 2: Flows of Beings

Heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes of becoming, in conjunction and disjunction with one another, produce and populate flows of beings.

Conjunctions and Disjunctions of Heterogenetic and Ontogenetic Processes

Conjunctions of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes populate flows of beings with probable beings. If (i) heterogenetic processes create potentials “to be likewise”, and (ii) these potentials “to be likewise” are taken up by an ontogenetic process that individuates beings, then (iii) the ontogenetic process yields probable beings.

Disjunctions of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes populate flows of beings with improbable beings. If (i) heterogenetic processes create potentials “to be otherwise”, and (ii) these potentials “to be otherwise” are taken up by an ontogenetic process that individuates beings, then (iii) the ontogenetic process yields improbable beings.

Conjunctions and Disjunctions of Ontogenetic and Phylogenetic Processes

Conjunctions of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes populate flows of beings with regularities. If (i) ontogenetic processes produce beings that are like one another, and (ii) their likeness is taken up by a phylogenetic process that relates like with like, then (iii) the phylogenetic process transforms “beings like others” into regular specimens of a species, or regularities for short. Regularities are, by definition, probable beings, for a conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes is a necessary condition for there to be a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes.

Disjunctions of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes populate flows of beings with aberrations. If (i) ontogenetic processes produce beings that are unlike one another, and (ii) their unlikeness is taken up by a phylogenetic process that relates like with unlike, then (iii) the phylogenetic process transforms “beings unlike others” into aberrant specimens of a species, or aberrations for short.

All improbable individuals are aberrations, but not all probable individuals are regularities: some probable individuals are also aberrations. In other words, an aberration may be a probable being or an improbable being. Probable aberrations emerge because a conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes does not automatically yield a conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes; while the former is necessary, it is not sufficient for the latter. A conjunction of heterogenetic and ontogenetic processes only yields individual beings that have a potential to be alike. A conjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes represents the successful actualization of a potential to be alike, while a disjunction of ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes represents an unsuccessful actualization of this potential.

Probable and Improbable Aberrations

Probable Aberrations: Accidental Aberrations

Probable aberrations are accidental aberrations, (co-)incidentally dissimilar beings. Although they do not share the likeness that constitutes the regularities produced by a given phylogenetic process, probable aberrations may share likenesses with one another. In other words, two probable aberrations produced by a given phylogenetic process may share a likeness with one another apart from their being unlike the regularities produced by that same process. A probable aberration is only ever (co-)incidentally an aberration that deviates from a norm, and, concomitantly, a regularity is only ever (co-)incidentally a regularity that conforms to a norm.

Improbable Aberrations: Essential Aberrations

Improbable aberrations are essential aberrations, essentially dissimilar beings. No two improbable aberrations produced by a given phylogenetic process will ever share a likeness with one another apart from their being unlike all regularities and unlike all probable aberrations. In other words, every improbable aberration is not only unlike the regularities produced by a given phylogenetic process but also unlike any and every other aberration produced by that process.

An improbable aberration is always essentially (as opposed to (co-)incidentally) an aberration that deviates from the norm. More profoundly, an improbable aberration is also always essentially (as opposed to (co-)incidentally) an outlier that deviates from other deviations. Probable aberrations, by contrast, can only ever (co-)incidentally (as opposed to essentially) be outliers that deviate from other deviations.

Three Ecologies of Existence Revisited

For purposes of illustration, I will treat regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations with respect to the three ecologies of existence identified in the last session: biological ecologies, behavioral ecologies, and cultural ecologies.

Biological Ecologies

With respect to biological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of genes and the diversity of gene pools.

Genetic replication is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities.
Genetic recombination is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yield probable aberrations.
Genetic mutation is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.

Ethological Ecologies

With respect to ethological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of memes and the diversity of meme pools.

Memetic replication is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities.
Memetic recombination is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yield probable aberrations.
Memetic mutation is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.

Ethnological Ecologies

With respect to ethnological ecologies, we are dealing with flows of epistemes and the diversity of episteme pools—their regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations.

Epistemic replication is the term for the conjunction of processes that yields regularities.
Epistemic recombination is the term for the conjunction and disjunction of processes that yield probable aberrations.
Epistemic mutation is the term for the disjunction of processes that yields improbable aberrations.

Conclusion

Through these three ecologies—biological, behavioral, and cultural—we can see how regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations emerge through the interplay of heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes. Whether in the flow of genes, memes, or epistemes, becoming is never a simple linear movement toward order or disorder. Rather, it is a dynamic interplay of conjunction and disjunction, pattern and deviation, probability and improbability. Through this lens, we see that becoming does not merely precede being—it conditions, disrupts, and exceeds it.

Session 3: Organizations of Beings

Organizations are “powers” that restrict flows of beings. They filter out different species and specimens of beings from the flows that pass through them, channeling these different species and specimens apart from one another. Organizations are composed of “paths of least resistance”: a given organization admits and promotes select species or specimens along particular paths or channels by minimizing resistance to the movement of those selected. However, organizations do not transcend the flows they restrict; rather, they are immanent to the flows of beings they regulate and are created by beings that are themselves part of these flows.

Types of Organizational Restriction

Segregating Organizations: Stratification of Flows

A segregating organization admits and promotes certain species populating a given flow of beings while detaining others, thereby stratifying that flow. Crucially, a segregating organization does not concern itself with whether a specimen is a regularity or an aberration within its species; rather, it selects based on species membership alone.

For example, a segregating organization that admits and promotes human beings over other beings will do so for any and every human, regardless of whether the human is a regular specimen or an aberrant specimen of humanity. Its selection criteria are species-based rather than individuated.

Standardizing Organizations: Conformity Within a Flow

A standardizing organization detains aberrant specimens within a given flow of beings, thereby inhibiting variability within that flow. In other words, a standardizing organization seeks to make the characteristics of a flow conform to a norm, admitting and promoting regularities over aberrations.

Unlike a segregating organization, which selects at the species level, a standardizing organization actively assesses whether a specimen is a regularity or an aberration within its species and admits or detains accordingly. For example, an organization that standardizes a flow of human beings will admit and promote those assessed to be regular specimens while detaining those assessed to be aberrant.

Normalizing Organizations: Regulation of Variability

A normalizing organization determines the distribution of aberrations within a given flow of beings, thereby normalizing a measure of variability within that flow. In contrast to standardizing organizations, which seek to eliminate aberrations, normalizing organizations permit a degree of deviation from the norm so long as it does not disrupt the overall distribution.

Thus, a normalizing organization will admit and promote aberrations alongside regularities, provided they remain within acceptable statistical limits. Only outlying aberrations—the improbable aberrations that are essentially outliers—are detained, while probable aberrations that deviate (co-)incidentally are permitted.

For example, an organization that normalizes a flow of human beings will promote aberrant specimens of humanity who do not upset the normal distribution but will detain those aberrant humans who, as outliers, disrupt it.

Optimizing Organizations: Modulation of Variability

An optimizing organization modulates the distribution of aberrations within a given flow of beings, seeking to maximize or minimize the prevalence of certain characteristics within that flow. Unlike normalizing organizations, which simply regulate variability, optimizing organizations actively intervene in the direction of variation.

For an optimizing organization, outliers are not necessarily problematic. Rather, only those outliers that would skew a distribution in a disadvantageous manner are detained, while those that skew a distribution in an advantageous manner are admitted and promoted. However, improbable aberrations—essential outliers—must always be detained because their impact on the distribution is inherently unpredictable. By contrast, probable aberrations—which skew distributions in predictable ways—are only detained when their effects are deemed disadvantageous.

For example, an organization that optimizes the flow of human beings will promote outliers that predictably skew the distribution in an advantageous manner while detaining those outliers that either skew the distribution in a predictably disadvantageous manner or do so unpredictably.

Three Ecologies of Existence Revisited

For purposes of illustration, I will treat organizational processes with respect to the three ecologies of existence identified in previous sessions: biological ecologies, behavioral ecologies, and cultural ecologies.

Biological Ecologies

With respect to biological ecologies, organizations restrict genetic diversity:

Segregating organizations stratify different varieties of life.
Standardizing organizations enforce conformity within and among varieties of life.
Normalizing organizations regulate measures of variability within and among varieties of life.
Optimizing organizations modulate measures of variability within and among varieties of life.

Ethological Ecologies

With respect to ethological ecologies, organizations restrict memetic diversity:

Segregating organizations stratify different varieties of behaviors.
Standardizing organizations enforce conformity within and among different varieties of behaviors.
Normalizing organizations regulate measures of variability within and among different varieties of behaviors.
Optimizing organizations modulate measures of variability within and among different varieties of behaviors.

Ethnological Ecologies

With respect to ethnological ecologies, organizations restrict epistemic diversity:

Segregating organizations stratify different varieties of customs.
Standardizing organizations enforce conformity within and among different varieties of customs.
Normalizing organizations regulate measures of variability within and among different varieties of customs.
Optimizing organizations modulate measures of variability within and among different varieties of customs.

Conclusion

Organizations operate within the flows of becoming, shaping the probabilities and improbabilities of beings by restricting, regulating, and modulating their movement. Whether biological, behavioral, or cultural, organizations do not exist outside of the flows they condition; they are immanent to them, generated by the very beings they organize. From segregating and standardizing to normalizing and optimizing, these powers configure the thresholds of admission, promotion, and detention, determining the conditions under which beings move, transform, or are held in place.

Session 4: Disorganizations of Beings

Disorganizations are “counterpowers” that liberate flows of beings. Where organizations restrict, channel, and regulate flows, disorganizations disrupt, unbind, and reconfigure them. Each mode of disorganization subverts a corresponding mode of organization, transforming the conditions under which beings relate, move, and emerge.

Modes of Disorganization

Hybridizations: Subverting Segregation

If a segregating organization stratifies different species within a flow of beings, then to subvert segregation is to de-stratify and re-integrate these species within the flow.

One effects hybridizations (and subverts segregation) when one defers to specimens of species other than one’s own. Hybridization dissolves rigid categorical separations, allowing for intermingling and entanglement where stratification once held sway.

Deviations: Subverting Standardization

If a standardizing organization enforces conformity within a flow of beings, then to subvert standardization is to allow a flow’s characteristics to deviate from the norm.

One effects deviations (and subverts standardization) when one defers to aberrations. Instead of enforcing regularity, deviation makes space for variability to proliferate, unsettling the normative structures that sustain conformity.

Indeterminations: Subverting Normalization

If a normalizing organization determines the probability distribution of a flow’s characteristics, then to subvert normalization is to make it impossible to determine such a distribution.

One effects indeterminations (and subverts normalization) when one goes beyond deferring to aberrations in general and defers to outlying aberrations in particular. By foregrounding the improbable and amplifying the unexpected, indetermination destabilizes the mechanisms that regulate variability.

Randomizations: Subverting Optimization

If an optimizing organization modulates a probability distribution to maximize or minimize certain characteristics within a flow, then to subvert optimization is to randomize the prevalence of characteristics within the flow.

One effects randomizations (and subverts optimization) when one goes beyond deferring to outlying aberrations in general and defers to improbable aberrations in particular. By privileging the entirely unpredictable over the selectively advantageous, randomization dissolves the logic of control that optimization imposes.

Three Ecologies of Disorganization

For purposes of illustration, I will treat disorganization with respect to the three ecologies of existence identified in previous sessions: biological ecologies, behavioral ecologies, and cultural ecologies.

Biological Ecologies

With respect to biological ecologies, disorganizations liberate genetic diversity:

Hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of life.
Deviations subvert the standardization of varieties of life.
Indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of life.
Randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of life.

Ethological Ecologies

With respect to ethological ecologies, disorganizations liberate memetic diversity:

Hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of behaviors.
Deviations subvert the standardization of varieties of behaviors.
Indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of behaviors.
Randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of behaviors.

Ethnological Ecologies

With respect to ethnological ecologies, disorganizations liberate epistemic diversity:

Hybridizations subvert the segregation of varieties of customs.
Deviations subvert the standardization of varieties of customs.
Indeterminations subvert the normalization of varieties of customs.
Randomizations subvert the optimization of varieties of customs.

Conclusion

Where organizations impose restrictions, disorganizations enact counterpowers that liberate flows of beings. From hybridization and deviation to indetermination and randomization, these processes do not merely resist organizational forces but actively recompose the conditions of emergence, relation, and transformation. In biological, behavioral, and cultural ecologies alike, disorganization opens new possibilities, unsettling established structures and expanding the range of what can come to be.

Session 5: Biopoetics and Necropolitics

A biopoetic organization is a life-generating organization. It exists solely to create living conditions for beings and willingly dissolves itself when it no longer fulfills this function. A biopoetic organization does not resist disorganization; rather, it gracefully succumbs to it, recognizing that its own impermanence is part of the generative processes it serves.

For example, a biopoetic organization that provides food for human beings may detain certain animal or plant species as long as doing so creates food for humans. However, such an organization will dissolve itself if human beings can obtain food otherwise, without needing to detain these species. More profoundly, a biopoetic organization continuously breaks down, falls into disrepair, and either disbands if no longer needed or is repaired if needed. It is an organization that makes space for its own undoing, ensuring that its dissolution is part of the broader flow of life it sustains.

A necropolitical organization, by contrast, is a death-dealing organization. Unlike the biopoetic organization, it is gracelessly resolved against disorganization, whether or not it continues to create living conditions for beings. A necropolitical organization preserves itself at all costs, even when it ceases to be necessary for life.

For example, a necropolitical organization that once provided food for human beings will continue detaining certain animal or plant species even after its intervention is no longer required. More than that, it will actively prevent humans from obtaining food without its assistance, ensuring that it remains indispensable. A necropolitical organization is necropolitical precisely because it monopolizes provisioning to assure its continued existence. It does not merely refuse to dissolve—it actively works against the conditions that might render it obsolete, trapping beings within its mechanisms.

Biopoetic and Necropolitical Organizations Across Three Ecologies

For purposes of illustration, I will treat biopoetic and necropolitical organizations with respect to the three ecologies of existence identified in previous sessions: biological, behavioral, and cultural ecologies.

Biological Ecologies

With respect to biological ecologies:

A necropolitical organization enacts the full domestication of one variety of life by another. It is gracelessly resolved against feralization and rewilding, seeking to maintain control indefinitely.
A biopoetic organization, by contrast, enacts the partial domestication of one variety of life by another. It willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to feralization and rewilding when conditions change.
Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in genetic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in genetic diversity without permanently obstructing it.

Ethological Ecologies

With respect to behavioral ecologies:

A necropolitical organization enacts the full repression of one variety of behavior by another. It is gracelessly resolved against the return of the repressed, maintaining behavioral control indefinitely.
A biopoetic organization, by contrast, enacts the partial repression of one variety of behavior by another. It willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to the return of the repressed, allowing for behavioral reemergence.
Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in memetic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in memetic diversity without permanently obstructing it.

Ethnological Ecologies

With respect to cultural ecologies:

A necropolitical organization enacts the full colonization of one variety of custom by another. It is gracelessly resolved against decolonization and indigenization, perpetuating its dominance.
A biopoetic organization, by contrast, enacts the partial colonization of one variety of custom by another. It willingly dissolves itself and gracefully succumbs to decolonization and indigenization, allowing cultural autonomy to reassert itself.
Whereas the necropolitical organization precipitates and accelerates a decline in epistemic diversity, the biopoetic organization temporarily slows a rise in epistemic diversity without permanently obstructing it.

Conclusion

The distinction between biopoetic and necropolitical organizations marks the difference between those that serve life and those that serve only themselves. Biopoetic organizations embrace their impermanence, ensuring that their function remains life-generating rather than self-perpetuating. Necropolitical organizations, by contrast, entrench their own necessity, ensuring that beings remain dependent on them even when they no longer sustain life. Across biological, behavioral, and cultural ecologies, this distinction determines whether an organization fosters autonomy, renewal, and regeneration—or whether it enforces dependence, repression, and control.

Session 6.1: Constructs

(Or, Beings Formed)

Constructs organize beings according to their forms, that is, according to how they have come to be configured: e.g., being a spherical particle or being a sawtooth wave.

Forms are the products of conjunctive and disjunctive processes of becoming—namely, heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes—which give rise to beings that are measurable or immeasurable, regular or aberrant, probable or improbable.

A heterogeny of forms distributes one set of intervals along another set of intervals, constituting a space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable). It generates indeterminate potentials that may or may not be actualized.

An ontogeny of forms coordinates the constituents of a space by actualizing potentials in determinate ways. In other words, an ontogeny of forms determines whether a space is measurable and how that measurability takes shape.

When a measurable space is constituted, ontogeny yields probable forms—forms that are actualized from potentials “to be likewise.”
When an immeasurable space is constituted, ontogeny yields improbable forms—forms that are actualized from potentials “to be otherwise.”

A phylogeny of forms relates two or more such spaces to one another based on the (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies. That is, phylogeny sorts forms by how they have been coordinated, producing regularities and aberrations.

Particles (i.e., Body Parts or Organs) are forms that arise when a phylogenetic process relates only regularities—beings produced by (co-)incidentally similar ontogenies with no aberrant variation.
Waves (i.e., Flows) are forms that arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities and probable aberrations—beings produced by ontogenies that are (co-)incidentally dissimilar but not essentially dissimilar.
Noise (i.e., Bodies without Parts/Organs) encompasses those forms that arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations—beings produced by ontogenies that are essentially dissimilar, beyond the thresholds of measurability and regularity.

A construct is an organization that admits beings according to their forms—that is, according to how their becoming has been configured.

A standardizing construct admits only beings formed of particles. It filters flows to exclude aberrations altogether, conforming to norms of regularity.
A normalizing construct and an optimizing construct admit beings formed of waves alongside those formed of particles. They tolerate probable aberrations within statistical limits or strategic advantage, respectively.
A segregating construct admits beings formed of noise alongside beings formed of particles and waves, but only on the condition that the noise is “well behaved”—i.e., only if the improbable aberrations they contain do not threaten the coherence of the construct.

A constructive failure occurs when beings formed of noise—beings whose improbable aberrations had been denied admission—are so noisy, generate such indeterminacy, or induce such disruption that they compromise the very constructs that excluded them.

Biopoetic constructs are gracefully dissolved by such constructive failures, recognizing that their role in facilitating life must give way to new forms of becoming.
Necropolitical systems are gracelessly resolved against constructive failures, preserving themselves by violently suppressing or neutralizing the noise.

Session 6.2: Mechanisms

(Or, Beings Transformed)

Mechanisms organize beings according to their transformations—that is, according to how their forms change over time: e.g., being rotated, stretched, or twisted.

Transformations are the products of heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes of becoming—processes that configure the ways in which beings change in relation to space-time and determine whether such changes are regular, aberrant, probable, or improbable.

A heterogeny of transformations distributes a set of transformations along a set of intervals, constituting a space-time with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable). It generates indeterminate potentials for transformation.

An ontogeny of transformations coordinates the constituents of a space-time by actualizing these potentials in determinate ways. In other words, an ontogeny of transformations determines whether or not a space-time is measurable, and how that measurability takes form.

When a measurable space-time is constituted, ontogeny yields probable transformations—transformations that emerge from potentials “to change in like manner.”
When an immeasurable space-time is constituted, ontogeny yields improbable transformations—transformations that emerge from potentials “to change in unlike manner.”

A phylogeny of transformations relates two or more different space-times to one another based on the (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies—i.e., based on the ways these transformations have been coordinated across different domains.

Displacements are transformations that arise when a phylogenetic process relates only regularities—transformations produced by (co-)incidentally similar ontogenies with no aberrations.
Deformations are transformations that arise when a phylogenetic process includes both regularities and probable aberrations—transformations shaped by (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dissimilar ontogenies, but not by essentially dissimilar ones.
Fluctuations are transformations that arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations—transformations shaped by ontogenies that are essentially dissimilar, exceeding the conditions of regularity and measure.

A mechanism is an organization that admits beings according to their transformations—that is, according to how their becoming proceeds through space-time change.

A standardizing mechanism admits only beings undergoing displacements. It enforces conformity by excluding all aberrant transformations.
A normalizing mechanism and an optimizing mechanism admit beings undergoing deformations alongside those undergoing displacements. They tolerate predictable aberrations to a limited or strategic extent.
A segregating mechanism admits beings undergoing fluctuations alongside those undergoing deformations and displacements—on the condition that these fluctuations are “well behaved,” that is, that they do not generate excessive noise or unpredictability.

A mechanical failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings undergoing fluctuations—having been denied admission due to their noise or unpredictability—generate so much disruption that they compromise the very mechanisms that excluded them.

Biopoetic mechanisms are gracefully dissolved by such failures, recognizing that their dissolution may serve the ongoing flow of transformative becoming.
Necropolitical mechanisms are gracelessly resolved against such failures, doubling down on exclusion in order to preserve control over transformation at any cost.

Session 6.3: Systems

(Or, Beings Informed)

Systems organize beings according to their states—that is, according to the dynamic variables that qualify transformations in their form: e.g., having more or less momentum, possessing more or less energy.

States are the effects of heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes of becoming—processes that configure how beings are informed by their conditions of variation, modulation, and intensity.

A heterogeny of states distributes a set of states along a set of transformations, constituting a state space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable). It generates indeterminate potentials for becoming informed.

An ontogeny of states coordinates the constituents of a state space by actualizing these potentials in determinate ways. In other words, an ontogeny of states determines whether or not a state space is measurable and how such measurability configures stability, instability, or fluctuation.

When a measurable state space is constituted, ontogeny yields probable states—states actualized from potentials “to be informed in like manner.”
When an immeasurable state space is constituted, ontogeny yields improbable states—states actualized from potentials “to be informed otherwise.”

A phylogeny of states relates two or more different state spaces to one another based on the (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies—i.e., the ways their informational dynamics have been coordinated across domains.

Stable states arise when a phylogenetic process includes only regularities—states produced by (co-)incidentally similar ontogenies, without aberrant variation.
Meta-stable states arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities and probable aberrations—states produced by ontogenies that are (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dissimilar, but not essentially dissimilar.
Critical states arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations—states produced by ontogenies that are essentially dissimilar, diverging from all regular norms of informational coordination.

A system is an organization that admits beings according to their states—that is, according to how their becoming has been informed through patterns of transformation.

A standardizing system admits only beings in stable states. It enforces conformity by excluding any aberrant expressions of becoming.
A normalizing system and an optimizing system admit beings in meta-stable states alongside those in stable states. They allow for deviation so long as it remains within a tolerable or advantageous range.
A segregating system admits beings in critical states alongside beings in meta-stable and stable states—provided the beings in crisis are “well behaved,” that is, that their improbability does not produce excessive noise or destabilization.

A systemic failure is a dis-organization that occurs when beings in critical states—excluded for the intensity or noise of their crisis—generate so much disruption that they compromise the systems that denied them.

Biopoetic systems are gracefully dissolved by such failures, understanding that breakdown may be a condition for renewal and reformation.
Necropolitical systems are gracelessly resolved against such failures, fortifying themselves against crisis and suppressing the transformative forces it may unleash.

Session 6.4: Complexes

(Or, Beings Enacted)

Complexes organize beings according to their actions—that is, according to how their dynamic variables affect and are affected by one another: e.g., how a being’s momentum influences and is influenced by its energy.

Actions are the expressions of becoming as coordinated across states, transformations, and forms. They arise from the interplay of heterogenetic, ontogenetic, and phylogenetic processes—processes that configure how beings come to be interpreted within function spaces of interrelation.

A heterogeny of actions distributes one set of states along another set of states, constituting a function space with the potential (i) to be measurable or (ii) to be immeasurable (i.e., otherwise than measurable). It generates indeterminate potentials for interrelation.

An ontogeny of actions coordinates the constituents of a function space by actualizing these potentials in determinate ways. In other words, an ontogeny of actions determines whether and how variables within a system can affect and be affected by one another.

When a measurable function space is constituted, ontogeny yields probable actions—actions emerging from potentials “to relate in like manner.”
When an immeasurable function space is constituted, ontogeny yields improbable actions—actions emerging from potentials “to relate otherwise.”

A phylogeny of actions relates two or more different function spaces to one another based on (dis-)similarities in their ontogenies—i.e., based on how variable relations have been coordinated across domains.

Re-actions (i.e., functions) arise when a phylogenetic process includes only regularities—actions based on (co-)incidentally similar ontogenies, without aberrations. A re-active variable is one that is determined by another: e.g., energy being determined by momentum.
Inter-actions (i.e., operators) arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities and probable aberrations—actions shaped by (co-)incidentally similar and (co-)incidentally dissimilar ontogenies, but not essentially dissimilar ones. Inter-active variables mutually determine one another in feedback loops: e.g., momentum affects energy, and energy affects momentum in turn.
Intra-actions (i.e., spectra of operators) arise when a phylogenetic process includes regularities, probable aberrations, and improbable aberrations—actions shaped by ontogenies that are essentially dissimilar, giving rise to complementary variables that cannot be simultaneously determined. Intra-active variables are entangled: the more precisely one is determined, the more indeterminate the other becomes—for example, the more precisely one’s momentum is known, the less precisely one’s energy can be known, and vice versa.

A complex is an organization that admits beings according to their actions—that is, according to how their becoming unfolds through variable relations and interpretive dynamics.

A standardizing complex admits only beings that are re-active. It enforces determinacy and unidirectional dependence, excluding relational variability.
A normalizing complex and an optimizing complex admit beings that are inter-active alongside those that are re-active. They permit predictable feedback relations so long as they remain within tolerable or beneficial bounds.
A segregating complex admits beings that are intra-active alongside beings that are inter-active and re-active—provided the intra-active relations do not produce excessive noise, uncertainty, or indeterminacy.

A complex failure is a dis-organization that occurs when intra-active beings—excluded for their indeterminate or noisy entanglements—generate such disruptive resonance that they compromise the coherence of the complexes that denied them.

Biopoetic complexes are gracefully dissolved by such failures, acknowledging that unpredictable interrelation may be necessary for emergent life and renewed interpretation.
Necropolitical complexes are gracelessly resolved against such failures, reinforcing control over interpretive systems and suppressing indeterminacy to maintain order.