More on Connectivity and Architectivity

A rocky planet is an environment in which things can be (for all practical purposes) persistently static relative to each other - ie architective.

Smaller extra-terrestrial objects such as comets and even cosmic dust grains also offer such environments, but they are not nearly as rich, offering a very much smaller capacity for persistent stasis, probably limited to the molecular and crystalline levels of architective emergence. And let us not forget, that with an extra level of emergent architecture, novel connective serial narratives may also arise. Rocky planets provide opportunities for complex worlds based on stasis to develop, our own Earth being a bountiful example.

Each rocky planet also provides a central reference frame for its world, against which the relative position and motion of all the objects of its world can be absolutely compared, thereby conjuring a rich self-consistent reality anchored to the planet - which, outside a planet (and outside a spaceship or comet or dustgrain) cannot exist.

*

Processional narratives display a kind of momentum, or perpetuance we might call it, in that they persist in their organization until subjected to an interaction that changes that perpetuance; just as in Newton's first law by which a physical object continues its motion (or lack thereof) unchanged until compelled to do so by the application of an interactive force. Indeed, it is difficult to shift a processional narrative by a non-interactive influence such as reason - a physical or monetary force is needed. Connective narratives do not display anything like perpetuance since they are so easily disturbed.

*

While we may argue as to whether the universe is spatially infinite, the spatial scope of architectivity is so narrow in comparison to that of connectivity that connectivity may well be regarded as spatially infinite.

*

The architective window of scale is effectively the 'factory floor' of the universe, for it is here that all the objects connectivity plays with are made.

Our own technological gadgets, like cars and phones, expand the universe's capacity for connective play. Unfortunately we design our devices primarily for their architective functionality, not recognizing that it is the room for connective play which they facilitate that is appreciated cosmically.

*

One may listen to a connective signal, even if it just drones or whines, and one will still be able to hear other signals through their interference with it.

An architective signal, on the other hand, overrides those that comprise it or eliminates those that contest with it - so information is lost.

*

Paying attention to connective subtleties does not require that one not attend to the connective bigger picture. But paying attention to an architective detail means losing focus on the bigger architective picture.

*

Objects may be moulded by connective influences to take on shapes that are connectively beautiful even though the objects themselves are architective (eg curvaceous sculptures, rocks sculpted by wind and water).

Such too is the case of a photograph or painting of a connectively beautiful scene. As an object the picture is static and architective (and probably not architectively beautiful, being a simple rectangle with meaningless non-linear scribblings or washes of colour) but may still be able to convey some of the connective meaning in the original scene even though the picture is static.

Thus the original connective beauty of a dynamic connective motion may be momentarily captured for re-display at a later time without losing its connective value entirely. The photograph may not have all the connective value of the original scene but it still has much of the value which was momentarily evident. And that value can of course be hugely extended by making a movie rather than taking a single snapshot. A recording of a musical recital can be almost as valuable as the original; and a recording of a profound original will of course have greater connective value than a recording of a poor one.

*

Resonance (as I have distinguished it from constructive interference) requires an architective shell or anchor point - so though it is a feature of connectivity it can only occur at architective scales.

*

The connective equivalent of architective layers is the order of the connective's patterns, and each object added to the connective contributes a new order to its patterning.

*

When objects relate architectively their groupings are static aggregates. When objects relate connectively their groupings are moving waves.

*

In a purely connective system every participating object is moving in accordance with all the other objects of the connective. It could be argued that although the movement of each object is unconstrained, there is no freedom of choice in its movement - each has to dance in tune with all the others. The only counter to this argument that I can see lies with the holism of the system - that they have to dance in tune with all the others but also with the whole - with the holism - whose indeterminacy may deliver a modicum of freedom to each object. This is particularly pertinent in the case of the cosmic connective system, where the Cosmic Deity (its holism) not only delivers some freedom to each object, but also allows for the presence of sentience in the holism itself, and the presence of sentience in any object that is able to constellate with the consciousness of the holism.

The argument for freedom of choice in a mixed connective and architective environment is much simpler, for in that environment architective constraints can isolate systems from the overall co-ooperation of the cosmic connective system, and it is in just such an environment that we find ourselves in, such that we are able (to some considerable extent) to choose to act in opposition to the influences of the cosmic connective system. Of course, within a purely architective environment, freedom of choice is totally restricted to what little scope there may be for sublimating the architective constrictions.

*

Unless some entirely novel communication medium is discovered, Physical Spirituality suggests communication that could be described as telepathic cannot be architective. That is, telepathy cannot convey specific, quantifiable information.

Feeling like you are being watched could be a purely connective communication and therefore a valid form of telepathy - and not definitively 'provable'.

*

It's not the complexity of an architective structure itself that can lead to life but the complexity of the connectivity the architective structure contains that can give it life.