So for the past few months, this novel idea has been germinating in my head. It started when I began thinking about the world and its history as a sort of vast, computational process; a sort of extremely intricate, more dazzling game of John Conway’s Life. And now, I’ve gotten to the point where I’m convinced that all of sociology’s processes can be modeled and assessed with some basic, yet deeply interconnected and “layered” operators and operations thereof.
Here’s what I mean by operators:
All of sociological process, at its most fundamental level, comes down to motivations and actions. And surprisingly, there’s really not much else to it, at base-level of course. Everything else, such as finance, business operations and development of ideology and worldview is simply a function of the interconnections between various actions and their structures and various motivations and their structures. A lot of current sociology, I feel, is too concerned with isolated certain groups or phenomena and holding steadfastly to this idea that: “before we can even attempt to model society on its broader level, we must first figure out the exact motivations of this group and why this and how that of this group.” Sure, occasionally they throw in analysis of “this group/phenomenon” in terms of “another group/phenomenon” but this analysis, in all cases that I’ve seen, is barren in terms of motivational-functional interplay. They simply use a few hypothesized motivations and chalk up the dynamic of the groups to those motivations, such as “displacement” or “differing worldviews”. This is sooo inadequate. So inadequate in fact that it wouldn’t be too completely out there to say that sociology is still stuck in the “dark ages”. It’s not quite caught up with the all-consuming, all-figuring-out march of scientific analysis, instead it still goes for throwing a couple of likely motivations of certain groups out there and hoping they stick.
Anyways… Here’s what I’m thinking:
So we can start out with two basic “operators”, the first for motivation and the second for action,
x—x the WHAT FOR operator And TS|X the DOING FUNCTION operator.
On top of this, we need a framework to handle the motivations at a more in-depth level. So now we’ll add,
} the IN TERMS OF operator, M the MATERIAL variable And A the ABSTRACT variable.
So for instance, if we have, x—x } M } A then we’ve got the form of a basic RELATIONAL CONSTRUCT.
Now we’ll add some depth to our variables, M and A. Each variable can have a type, such that M(sub)a shows that M has a VARIABLE TYPE, a that specifies the MATERIAL aspect of the RELALTIONAL CONTRUCT that it appears in¹. Here’s an example of a full, specific relational construct: x—x} M(sub)a } A(sub)b
But all of this is no use without having a set of sociological entities onto which these operators and functions can couple. So here’s the rundown:
There are 5 base-level CLASSES of sociological entities and 1 “emergent level”, seen separated from the others at the bottom,
So now, we can model a few entities. Here we have an individual, Α, and business, Δ,
A | x—x } M(sub)$ } A(sub)s
Δ | x—x } M(sub)$,w } A(sub)s
where $ = profit, monetary gain • s = success/acheivement • w = work, labor
Fine and dandy. But now we need a way of modeling the two classes’ interaction amongst one another. So I’ve developed something that I call an AGREEMENT FUNCTION, such that,
Α | x—x } M(sub)$ } A(sub)s AND Δ | x—x } M(sub)$,w } A(sub)s
represent an AGREEMENT FUNCTION that can be expressed as:
[A | R } x–x } M(sub)$ } A(sub)s] ⇔ [Δ | R } x—x } M(sub)$,w } A(sub)s]
where R represents an ASKING FOR statement • ⇔ represents the agreement/ implied contract that stands between both parties, connected through their coinciding aspects of their relational constructs. Now we can move to the next step that follows–in an abstract sense–agreement: execution. I call the following an EXECUTION FUNCTION,
TS | X ◊ X⊕x, X⊗x
where ⊕ = a CLASS ACCOUTREMENT • ⊗ = a CLASS ACCOUTREMENT ENABLER • where ◊ = the WITH HELP OF operator
So basically, all this “class acoutrement” stuff is what allows the sociological entity to perform its duty and fulfill its agreement function. So a class accoutrement could be transportation, assets, investments, property, items of production or purchase, etc.. And a class accoutrement enabler could be fuels, resources, raw goods, that either enable that entity to possess the CAs or come before the CAs if the entity is in the Δ (business) class.
Now let’s move on to the third stage in the agreement-execution-fulfillment process, fulfillment. The following is what I call a FULFILLMENT FUNCTION,
A | ♣R } x—x } M(sub)$ } A(sub)s
where ♣ = “FULFILLMENT”, which is a consesus-based standing involving the interplay between the entities involved.
So… I figure that’s a pretty decent intro to my ideas. I have much more developed but don’t want to muddy the intro by introducing fifty, crazy-ass concepts. But, with this system, I’ve been able to model class A (individual-level) personal agreements, agreements within these agreements, how these agreements are viewed and weighted by both indivuals and how these agreements combine with each individuals varying other agreements. And this is just the beginning!
Much more to come,