Rhizome : Cosmology

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Jun 9, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: we forget to see what is in front of us , at a higher level of abstraction ?

I would be glad , if this can inspire you , if you could give me some feed back on this – and if this can connect to some of your work / if some collaboration could be foreseen

– I prefer presenting it informally :

In the last week , as I did some more internet browsing on topics such as Quantum physics , I have the feeling that Physicists forget to see what is just in front of us , and what we are using all the time ,

and is simple to see even though it might be at a higher degree of abstraction :

the processes and other abstract objects such as concepts that are all around us.

My current hypothesis that I already exposed to some of you ( I ll re-paste some conversations below )
is that abstract objects , including objectified processes , are also dimensions , and that they function and are all part of the same universal system.

In other words , a process dimension is a ” Brane ” of a certain order ,



and as explained in my process dimensions axiom ,

http://oikoumene.coforum.net/processdimensions ( or see the yahoo groups links on that page )

there are process dimensions in process dimensions – there is a infinity of dimensions , and there are also flows , relations , etc –
Even dreams are part of it , at a higher level of abstraction.

So the structures we are , and the ones we develop , and the emergent negentropic process is actually a process of emergence related to all the other objects in the universe –

We could model this , and use this understanding to develop emergence / or ” visualize emergence ”

I also feel that asking ” why there is something ” is not as much the question as ” why this experience and not another ”

I feel that there is everything at all times , but that somehow we seem to limit ourself to a certain experience , possibly at first ( when understanding process dimensions ) through limitation by addiction , and then , possibly also to limitation by addiction to the string ( or ” brane ” of “n” value )  we might be experiencing : the direction of the flow of our CONSCIOUSNESS


I want to further experiment with these models – as there is great potential – and I have the intention to create synergies with other interested individuals , such as you ?

This model has the potential of being a universal science as all knowledge and all relations can be included.

More and more questions could pop up – one that I have at the moment is how do they see each other ?

How do all objects , of all different abstraction levels , see each other ?  ( and how can we then create a meta cortex , etc etc – details in past pasted conversations below )
s concept some kind of EMERGENT GRAVITY applicable to all objects of all levels of abstraction ?

possibly quantum gravity and emergent gravity could give some answers ?


I have the feeling that all is aware of all at the same time – so they ( objects and objectified processes ) all see each other , and this can also be understood through process dimensions

But i still need to experiment with the axiom of process dimensions –

and would also like to experiment with a meta-cortex

and possibly you can help in developing such project ?

Ok , thats it for now

more below

greetings from Vilnius – or what seems to be vilnius at a certain level of abstraction , a certain ” brane ” we call ” real world ”



Rhizome : Post-Symbolic Meaning Dimensions

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson

Date: Jun 5, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Using Quantum Gravity for Dynamic Relational System / Dynamic Relational Positioning of Objects ?

I am Dante , originally from Brussels.

My research has brought me to you , as I am currently trying to find solutions for a way to build a dynamic relational reference system , in a system of infinite dimensions and levels of abstraction.
Navigation in such a system would be relative to the reference chosen in the eventual navigation , yet the challenge is to understand how a specific kind of ” gravity ” could be used in the way that all objects relate and see each other – through each other ? –

I have the feeling some of your research related to quantum gravity could be used.

Such a dynamic relational reference system would be useful for many different applications , including the understanding of meaning through the dynamic relational positioning of objects ( in infinite levels of abstraction )

Some of these axioms and the tools to visualize and build with it raises interdisciplinary questions.

I have the feeling some of your research and understanding can lead to such solutions , and I also have the feeling some of my axioms could also be of interest to you – see links further below –

and I would like to have your views on how our visions on universal systems could converge , and complement each other.

To present some of my axioms briefly : everything is relations , relations with a certain conciousness become processes.

Processes and concepts , as much as what seems ” material ” , are ” Objects ” ( or are ” objectifiable ” ) with more or less abstraction.

A “relation” between two objects is an object itself , at abstraction level +1

all conciousness we have of ” physical ” objects , all knowledge ( objects with higher level of abstraction as physical objects ? ) , any relation , is connected and can be used to visualize other objects  on different levels of abstraction of which we do not have conciousness of yet.

I would like to experiment by developing a tool that could also be used as some kind of ” meta cortex ” ,
and that would not only make it possible to build and visualize databases of relations , but also to visualize the emergent levels of abstraction , as such a data base would have emergent properties and become a window for opening up our conciousness to infinite levels of abstraction.

I also feel that understanding ” conciousness” is also useful in finding solutions , and possibly my following axiom on ( objectifiable ) process dimensions can help in that matter :


I also feel it might connect to some of your research. In this axiom , ” time ” is also being questioned , and our experienced ” reality ” would be nothing more then an ” addiction to a string ” of process dimensions.

Individual process dimensions are experienced in one of the two following flows :

a negative flow being one that is narrowing down towards addiction to a specific channel / trust – i call this a ego experienced flow –

and a positive flow being one that is multiplying its strings of experienced objects , reducing ” specific ” dependency and addiction – i call this a metatized experienced flow –

as you can see on the process dimensions notes page , it starts with 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 –

” 0 ” as the relation that i call ” inspiration ” , and that can be negative of positive ( this is relative to the object / objectified process )

Negatively and positively experienced process dimensions can be connected between each other , and as energy flows along the string from greater process dimensions it can influence the sustainability of the experienced reality.

( a negatively experienced process dimension , when too disconnected from metatized processes , has a high risk of dying )

what concerns 1 , 2 and 3 , I prefer letting you read my notes and the examples further on that page.


This would only be the beginning – many more elements can be found on the basis of 0 , 1 , 2 , 3

for example , strings , that are the continuity of experienced process dimensions , would be the next step that can be further understood and developed.

It would be interesting to understand what happens when there is no more addiction to the string –

It seems there is the potential for a infinity of process dimensions at all times , but they are not all experienced , and not all on the same string /  would it be possible to relate strings , etc ?

Anyway , these are questions for later – questions that could become easier to solve when I / we can find some answers for a


also see some older notes on :



To be able to build such a meta-cortex tool – a tool that opens up dimensions to input , relate , build ,  and allow emergence of ( abstract ) objects and relations –

The question I have at this point of time and need to solve is : how to facilitate the visualization of the meaning of different abstract objects , according to its relation to all other objects – its relative position.

I have the feeling that according to its position , a position determined to all the relations the object has with other objects , the object will find itself closer or further to other objects , and therefore one will start visualizing different ( multi ) dimensions of meaning.

This implies that , with the use of such a meta-cortex space , we will also be able to use a new language , where all concepts can be built upon and can be communicated according to their relations , and their position according to their relations  ( all concepts expressed in verbal language , but also all other concepts that are not yet expressed verbally , or that can be found through emergence of the system of inter-related objects )

That would mean that the more objects ( for example , abstract objects like concepts ) are added to the data base ( or the more data bases of relations are connected ) the more the system fine tunes itself , and the higher the precision of its positioning.

Therefore , it would be interesting to have a dynamic system of positioning of abstract objects and relations – that would be based on all the other relations.

Possibly , there could be a navigator ( I call it a ” rhizomic visualization browser ” ) ,

and one would be able to navigate based on the points of reference one would want to choose.

I would like to experiment with this.

I have the feeling that a conventional program , where we define too many rules in advance as to get a specific result , is not exactly what i m looking forward to , as I would like to see how the system itself is capable of defining itself.

So based on the dimensions in which the relations end up , they would acquire specific meaning – and it would not be necessary , for example , for semanticists , to pre-define meaning of certain relations.

I also want to see how it creates new dimensions , and how it creates emergence on relations.

In other words , such a system would not only have the emergent property of creating new relations and objects in infinite levels of abstraction , but also of constructing relations that would be able to visualized as types of relation , or relations in certain dimensions , and could be attributed a certain meaning.

I have the feeling that ultimately the processing power of a conventional bits processing engine would not be appropriate to facilitate emergence in such a system , especially if it grows to a large number of relations.

On the longer run , it will be interesting to understand how would be possible to instantaneously have the results of a new relation integrated into such a ( networked data base ) system.

Like when one string pulls all other strings it is attached to , and that the dynamic position of such evolving and emergent system fine tunes itself ?

Ok , possibly questions for later.

For now ,

I hope some of the ideas I presented are clear enough – and that they could be complementary with some other ideas you know of or develop.

If the ideas expressed are not clear enough , feel free to let me know – I could also meet up with you somewhere in europe to explain it face to face.

by the way, although I am from Brussels originally , I live a post-nomadic lifestyle and am sending this message from Vilnius , Lithuania.

my profile on the internet : http://oikoumene.coforum.net/DanteGabryell

I would be interested to see what these ideas could inspire to you or people you know.

I am organizing a one month collective in Germany , gathering thinkers , programmers , activists , artists , …
to which you or other persons you would suggest are invited if you want :


I am also pasting below some conversation I shared in the last month with Michel Bauwens and Francois Rey , in relation to the ideas expressed in this letter.

– for future communication , we can communicate both in english and in french. –