Orientation: Affordance, Invitation & Metaphor

“But, actually, an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or it is both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective-objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer.”

― James J. Gibson 

As stated, quadranym dimensions are divided into modes and states. States are addressed in this section. Modes will be addressed in the next section.

Viewpoints & Condition Variables:

Humans ability to communicate with one another requires the creation of commonality through a shared mindset or a point of view. For instance if someone reads, “The event was no picnic”. The reader then assumes the conditions of the event as seen through a common viewpoint of picnics. The conditions of a picnic are something like; outside, pleasant sunny day, food, friend(s) or family, relaxing and pleasurable. So, the event was not that. Also, the temporal condition of the event is understood. It is a past event. Actually, there are quite a few different viewpoints that one retrieves when reading such a statement. In our approach, a viewpoint is a set of conditions assumed when given a topic. Every viewpoint assumes condition variables.

• not picnic = not pleasurable:  displeasure, burden, sorrow, pain, grief.

A reader requires a sense of the general conditions when responding to the situational contexts in a text. Conditions are the state of the responsiveness.

States: Source & Target Conditions:

The responsiveness we are referring to is about quickly orienting to text.

For instance, walking implies apt conditions such as, legs enabling a body to move along on a surface with force and gravity. Conditions imply and don’t necessarily specify. State conditions assume and point toward more detail.

• The word walk triggers general realms such as, Energy, Space and Time.

Walk is a word that denotes locomotion i.e., moving from point a to point b. Locomotion is a realm of conditions. It has basic mode conditions, a move mode and a stay mode. It also has state conditions, a position state and a place state. Position is the orientation and place is the area of orientation. In the locomotion realm, the position of the agent is the subjective state. Place is its objective state. Position refers to an agents orientation and viewpoint. Place refers to the things that are changing. No matter where the agent goes that is its position. Changing the place brings a new value to its position. Walk can fall under many realms. Some more general then locomotion such as, energy. In the case of Energy, the orientation might be motion and refers to the subjective state of energy. The objective state is matter. Matter brings a new value to motion. Only after the matter is identified can motion receive a value. In the case of walk, legs are the matter and motion receives its value — legs are in motion. Every realm has a viewpoint — from source to target conditions. The task, find target conditions.

• The source and target orientation used depends on the situational context.

The Orientation of Source and Target Conditions:

Orientation has a specific role in each quadranym. It identifies the source condition that is necessary before any target condition can be engaged.

• Source and target conditions are internal features of quadranym units.

Textual elements map to the condition features situated in each unit.

(Note: Source conditions represent intuitive mental states such as, subjective sense/unattended perception. Targets are objective sense/attended perception.)

Fine tuning a text involves mapping it to source and target conditions. The term affordance is borrowed to refer to the conditions of one’s responsiveness.

• In the schema, the source is like an affordance and its utility is the target.

(Note: Affordances show agents the actions they can take. Agents perceive affordances without having to consider how to use them. e.g., a teacup holds fluids or may be utilized as a cookie cutter. (The source affords target variables.))

The source affordance is something different from perceptual affordances. It doesn’t attend the world. It attends the experience of attending the world.

• Source affordances represent engaging and sharing orientations with others.

In the schema, a source condition is a factor intrinsically occurrent in the context. A target condition is a factor changing or modifying in the context.

(Intrinsically Occurrent: a temporal relation to the self from which adaptations occur. A virtual present moment to orient any changes or modifications in a unit.)

• Example: {<I, will, know, as_soon, as_I, walk, through, the door>}
• Source: Space {through}, Time {as soon, as_I}, Agent {I}.
• Target: Space {door}, Time {will), Mental {know}, Locomotion {walk}.

• Sorted String Sets: Target Condition ⊆ Source Condition

A Global System Model of the Occurrent Context Layers:

Orientation has a specific role in global layers, it sets the hierarchical order.

Contextual Layers: General to relevant spatial-temporal invitation system.

• Example: I will know as soon as I walk through the door.

Contextual Ecosystem (Onion)

Layers of Target Potentials (environmental adaptors):

1. Space: the_door
2. Time/Locomotion: will
3. Time/Locomotion: walk
4. Agent/Mental: know

 Layers of Source Actuals (responsive anchors):

1. Space: through (anchors the_door)
2. Time/Locomotion: as_soon (anchors will)
3. Time/Locomotion: as_I (anchors walk)
4. Agent/Mental: I (anchors know)

Sorted States: [Space S, Time T, Locomotion L, Agent A, Mental M]

1. S: Source state: void {through}  ⊇ target state: between {the_door}.
2. T/L: Source state: present/position {as_soon} ⊇ target state: event/place {will}.
3. T/L: Source state: present/position {as_I} ⊇ target state: event/place {walk}.
4. A/M: Source state: self/knower  {I} ⊇ target state: goal/knowable {know}.

(Note: The source affordances above refer to anchors more than perceptions in the world. However, the anchors help select, organize and interpret the targets.) 

Spatial-Temporal Affordance & Invitation Layers:

Keep in mind that through of the first layer is intrinsic to the agents nature. It  doesn’t describe what the agent is doing, rather, it describes what the agent is invited to do i.e., Invitation systems form the hierarchies that nest affordances.

• The same basic sequential dynamic in each unit (cycle) occur in the layers.
• Last Unit: Knower is the source condition. Knowable is the target condition.
• Layers: Void begins the general realm. Knowable ends the relevant realm.

(Note: The distinction between agent and environment is local and temporal.)

Invitation Layers & Contextual Artifacts:

(Note: A contextual artifact is dynamically actual and situationally potential.)  

Spatial orientation space_void {through}, is the most general layer in this Invitation System. It is the primary invitation to the environmental space. It is the invitation that anchors for the targets on each more relevant layer.

• Each layer is a sequence (cycle), FROM source condition TO target condition.

Each quadranym has a source i.e., an idiosyncratic method of orientation. For instance, layer 2 orientation sources {as_soon} as the actual position of the present state i.e., present position orients to event {will} as the temporal target.

• Layer 2: subjective source {as_soon} orients the objective variable {will}.

(Note: as_soon is during the time of being before event. Will is that event. In the normal understanding of the term here, will expresses the future inevitability of the event. In this system the expression itself is the event i.e.,  as_soon → will.)

Each layer is an invitation for the next layer to proceed.

• Layer 3: subjective source{as_I} orients the objective variable {walk}.

(Note: as_I is during the time of being for event. Walk is that event.)

Layers 1,2,3 provide invitation for layer 4. These layers can serve as a system for other relevancies such as, door → leave instead of door → know.

• Original 4: Source state: self/position  {I} ⊇ target state: goal/place {know}.
• Alternative 4: Source state: self/position  {I} ⊇ target state: goal/place {leave}.

In the example, the invitation layers amounts to …

• Spatial orientation invites door to invite locomotion to invite knowing.

System Layers & Metaphorical Mapping:

(Note: Metaphor requires a dedicated article. Overview below.)

On a metaphorical level, a door can be a transition to nearly anything.

• The doors of our mind.
• The doors to other worlds.
• The doors of opportunity.
• The doors of knowledge.

Consider our standard example:

• I will know as soon as I walk through the door.

As anyone might imagine, will_know can be replaced by seemingly endless other relevancies such as,  will_have_opportunity,  will_change,  will_start,  will_go etc…

Metaphorical Target Realm Examples:

• Addressing obstacles.
• New opportunities. 
• Ending or starting. 
• Transitioning.
• Learning.

In our approach, a metaphor is the relationship between the dynamical context and the situational context.  Two different systems of context.

• Cognitive metaphor is the difference between source and target domains.

A domain is a specified sphere of knowledge. A condition is the state of something. Where conditions change, domains basically stay the same.

(Note: e.g., Spatial Conditions are different when traveling between rooms and traveling between cities. Time and energy changes. Still, it’s the Spatial Domain.)

Consider the sentence example below:

• The news of the merger hit them all like a brick.

Conceptual metaphors are normally understood as a connection between two domains. The dynamics of source and target conditions also apply here.

• In the model, source condition is dynamical. Target condition is situational.

Consider the script below. Situational brick becomes dynamical brick.

• [Situational(brick)]<find>[dynamical(brick) ⊇ Situational(news)]<find>[dynamical(news)⊇ Situational(hit)]<find>[dynamical(hit)]<cycle>.

Above is the same as…

• [Concrete(brick)]<find>[Abstract(brick) ⊇ Concrete(news)]<find>[Abstract(news)⊇ Concrete(hit)]<find>[Abstract(hit)]<cycle>.

The source is for the dynamical context and the target is for the situational context. The iteration cycle above is a script for dynamical context layers.

• Scripts distribute condition factors between source and target domains.

The reference frame modes adjust to source and target. News is a potential condition of brick. Other layers such as feel and impact add more grounding.

• The source affordance is brick and its target variable is news

Contextual Layers: General to relevant spatial-temporal invitation system.

Layered State Orientations: (Blank Example)

1. Space: Source state: void{…} ⊇ target state: between{…}.
2. News/Feel: Source state: info/aware{…} ⊇ target state: receive/contact{…}.
3. News/Feel: Source state: info/aware{…} ⊇ target state: receive/contact{…}.
4. Agent/Impact: Source state: self/force{…} ⊇ target state: goal/contact{…}.

Sorted State Elements: (Content Example)

1. Source state: void {all} ⊇ target state: between {the_news}.
2. Source state: info/aware {of_the} ⊇ target state: receive/contact {merger}.
3. Source state: info/aware {Like_a} ⊇ target state: receive/contact {brick}.
4. Source state: self/force  {them} ⊇ target state: goal/contact {hit}.

The situational context is about the merger and how they all felt about it. Humans know brick is a metaphor expressing the emotional impact. Brick is not about the situation. It is about the dynamical context in response to the situation i.e, a distinction between a dynamic sense and the actual situation.

How does an agent know the difference?

1. The situational context represents objective sense (participate with others). 
2. The dynamical context represents subjective sense (a self distinction).

(Note: Some inspiration for this distinction is with the efferent copy (neurology). Situational contexts represent actual situations. Dynamical contexts represent responses that can occur in those situations.  Stability requires their distinction.)

The dynamical context presents interactive spaces. That is, contextual responses. The situational context allows a response within its constraints.

• Situational contexts allow temporal-spatial units to be figurative or literal.

A reciprocal relationship between a dynamical context and a situational context renders apt virtual orientation for the responsiveness to a meaning.

1. Situational Context: Representational: What hit them? {< news, hit, them>}.
2. Source state: feel {them_all} ⊇ target state: react {the_news}<find> topic

The word (or sense) brick is being repurposed from the situational context position. From the dynamical context position it is simply a viewpoint layer.

1. Dynamical Context: Procedural: How did it hit them? {like_a_brick}.
2. Source state: motion {hit} ⊇ target state: matter {brick}<find> topic 

There is no need to go into all the properties of a brick.

Below are orientation topics (dynamic entailments of the sentence):

• hit: Source state: force {from} ⊇ target state: contact {to}
• Brick: Source state: block {heavy} ⊇ target state: build {solid}
• Energy: Source state: motion {hit} ⊇ target state: matter {brick}
• Emotion: Source state: feel {them_all} ⊇ target state: react {the_news).

Brick invites energy (size/weight modes of measure).

(Note: Source-target conditions pull inferences from textual elements and default states.  Impact felt: hit/brick filtered:  physically, psychologically or emotionally.)

The dynamical context copies the situational context within its own system paradigms. The result are various kinds of viewpoints. Some viewpoints apply and some don’t as they are inferred, filtered, measured and balanced.

• The situational context works to preserve the objective perception.
• The dynamical context works to apply responses to the perception.

(Note: With word-sensibility analysis there are no initial concrete ontological foundations except for basic responses and motivations. Instead, dynamical contexts and situational contexts develop on the same continuum where they become more distinct over time and continuously form and reform each other.)

Dynamic sense is about systems of source and target layers and mapping those systems and layers to each other to aptly target objective conditions.

• The situational context analysis is about the truth conditions.

The situational context seeks an objective ontological foundation.

• The dynamical context analysis is about the dynamic sense.

The dynamical context is a subjective ontology driven by orientation.

Dynamical contexts are by default virtual rationalizing systems when acting without objective conditions of the situational context. When coupled to objective conditions, its function is to simultaneously preserve reliable objective perspectives and its dynamic sense. It is generally healthy when the coupling is highly predictive to the potential conditions of its environment.

• Dynamical context references prior successful couplings to justify a response.

Dynamical context units virtually seek to interface with real conditions to assimilate a vast and pervading objective field (i.e., the environment) into its system. The reward and benefit is that once attached to viable conditions, the system naturally functions to increase the tractability of its objective field.

• Dynamical Context: source conditions anchor for objective condition targets.

Although beyond the scope of this article, there is filtering such as inhibiting and debugging processes that control relational dynamics between systems.

• The meaning is in the text. The dynamical context responds to the meaning.

In this approach, metaphor is an example of dynamic sense responding to the situational context and we suggest that disambiguation processes utilize a very similar structure.  We’ll touch on disambiguation in the next section.

•  Dynamical context units are about finding ways to adapt to environments.

Orientational layers can be added, subtracted or rearranged. Next, spatial orientation adjusts its spatial region coordinates to the situational context.

• Quadranym reference frames operate like sensing units of homeostasis.

Note: The idea of orientation as illustrated above is one example or way to think about layers of virtual orientation. Sentential methods of orientational analysis may at times require grammatical assistance. Grammatical analysis primarily pertains to the situational context. The goal is to model the relations between the situational context and the dynamical context systems. Also, orientation may summarize chunks of text e.g., an entire sentence may be a source or a target. The distinction spans between the word-topics and the theme topics of a text. Orientation, as we are presenting it, is chiefly about the ability to abstract the human experience of contextual expectation by building up from the word-level.  

Model

next

                 Draft — Work In Progress