More on Connectivity and Architectivity

A rocky planet is an environment in which things can be found which are 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 lesser variety of objects in persistent stasis, probably limited to the molecular and crystalline levels of architective emergence. And let us not forget, that with every extra level of emergent architecture, novel connective serial narratives may 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 they encounter 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 economic force is needed. Connective narratives do not display anything like perpetuance since they are so easily disturbed.

*

Architectivity - that epitome of constraint within boundaries - is itself ultimately constrained by its inability to cross the planetary divide.

*

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 as well as for architective play. Unfortunately we design our devices primarily for their architective functionality, not recognizing that it is the room for connective play which they incidentally 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 a 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.

*

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.