[PhilWeb] Re: Götterdämmerung in der Philweb-Lounge

Liebe, so ausdauernd diskutierende und kommentierende Philweb-Enthusiasten, hier meine aktuell geplante Einreichung, die auch aus unserem Austausch hier entstanden ist. Einreichung noch nicht erfolgt, Annahme offen. - zum internen Gebrauch…., später open source Sehr dankbare Grüße in die Runde, Thomas Thomas Fröhlich Letter to the editor Individualized time and space embedded in general time and space – a debatable proposal The dynamic systems theory concept of individualized time and space was outlined in an article submitted to Wiley Journal Systems Research and Behavioral Science and in further publications (Fröhlich 2025, 2022, 2019). This letter discusses the rationale behind this concept and its relationship to an equally valid model of general space and time. We commenced with pairs engaged in interactions instead of hypothetical singles, using corresponding bicentric or polycentric relational activities as starting fragments. Following random encounters, these fragments perform according to their inherent capacity to adapt to each other. By creating a harmonious interaction, the fragments mutually implement the accessible aspects of their partner’s dynamics in their subsequent cooperative processing. Relational components, such as primary orientation, aspectual differentiation, and aspect-related interpretative adaptation, were included in the primary dynamic pairs. Compared to its founding isolated fragments, the mutually implemented accessible aspects form a surplus of the resulting system, thereby establishing ever-larger, interactionally and dynamically individualized, implementation-enriched units. In this case, the system structure remains the same regardless of the number of members cooperating to form the system. Therefore, we obtained a fractal structure iterated at both small and large scales. Shifting the focus from single fragments to interactive elements requires an initial differentiation. We mentally distinguish between interaction-providing sourcing instances and their individualized specifications, thus providing opportunities for discretized cooperation. This corresponds to the established theoretical distinction between potentia and actus–Latin terms that reflect the terms dynamis and energeia in ancient Greece. Differentiation is advantageous in allowing the introduction of a non-set-like source form of prefactual seed homogeneity, thus providing the opportunity to unfold into different paths of discretized, interactionally dynamic entities. The resulting dynamic entities enact their own interactional timing and spatial relationships, producing internal relational homogeneities that are understood as different, gradually separated own worlds. Their distinctive time-shaping interactional specifications deviate from the primordially content-free transindividual flow of general time and the corresponding homogeneity of the general space. The constituents of dynamically defined worlds share common aspects that are common to all interactions that can be realized. These common aspects transcend the individuality of each moment and place in favor of universal time and space. The convergence of transindividual aspects creates a general space and time shared by all individuals, thereby providing a comparative background for detecting and considering individual interactions. Both individualized and general time and space co-emerge from common sources. As they diverge from this common source, they divide, realizing both the individual and general aspects that are tacitly contained in this source. The general systematics of creating counter-general individuality can be described as thematic spiraling around a theme-generating core. If perpetuated, this punctual core morphs into a semantic axis and continuously structures the interactions at the meta-level. The “inside” of each interactional pairing as well as the “inside” of the thematic spiraling combine to form a multi-layered semantic interiority. The proposed model required acknowledging the information exchange at the physical level. This allowed us to clarify the role of bodily resources in producing interactional dynamics through periodically structured chemical and electromagnetic information exchanges. In animals and humans, detached eigenworlds can emerge from ritualized movements, sound sequences, manmade symbols, gestures, and words. The more body-distant individuality is achieved in these maneuvers, the more the terms “mental” and “spiritual” apply. A major advantage of this approach is that the activities of mutual interpretive awareness and knowledge implementation are understood as integral parts of any internally systematized dynamics starting at the atomic and molecular levels. Partners of an atomic or molecular interaction respond to each other to mutually adapt, allowing the specificity of the interaction to be embedded in and compared to general space and time. Initially, note that each occurs unintentionally at the molecular level. Without a plan, this non-mental mutual “consideration” leads to mutual adaptation, allowing the fragments to conform and interact with an emergent, embryonic individuality of their own. Thus, adaptive self-transformation succeeding in orienting oneself toward another and the subsequent use of non-signal-intermediated information about its accessible aspects can all be understood as enacted awareness and interpretive knowledge implementation. Because these logically differentiated acts form a part of any identifiable interaction, they contribute to the elementary basis of any dynamic system. Consequently, the corresponding activities do not need to be logically added afterwards as separate or additional activities. Thus, the apparent discrepancy between generality-oriented scientific approaches and meaning-oriented humanities approaches can be overcome by hypothesizing a common source of both individuality and generality. If the simultaneous existence of both forms of space and time is seen as starting from seed-like instead of set-like sources, the discrepant approaches of science and humanities can incorporate the complementary concepts of general and individualized time and space and engage in a relational, mutually considered unification. References Fröhlich, T. 2025. “Dynamic Systems Theory: A New Approach.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, under review Fröhlich, T. 2022. “The Clinical Paradox: Acting in Two Worlds in Parallel.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 29: 748–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13802 Fröhlich, T. 2019. “General System Theory (GST) and a Non-Reductionist Concept of Elements: Suggesting a Corresponding Discussion Based on Tramonti (2019).” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 36: 342–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2592 Conflicts of interest Concerning the Letter to the Editor for publication in a yet to find journal, titled “Individualized times and spaces embedded in general time and space – a debatable proposal.” The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare related to this publication.