Explore

iD.OS

An iD.OS is a cultural level iDOS, which is the bare minimum pattern needed to express a Self, in part or whole. It is a transpersonal identity which exists in process. An infinite dialogical operating system. It coordinates at least 4+ Virtual LAN-scapes.

iD.OS Article

Intro

Words are powerful. Language is power. The object of power is to shape its subject. Our language shapes our perception, our words identify our cognitive and experiential parts, our discourse frames our shared reality.

Old idea, new concept

terms vs concepts

terms are vessels for a concept, which is an affordance within language

Imaging the concept as imaginal rendering, “sense making”

Unpacking the Term

There’s a lot going on with this term, even as its being delivered in a relatively simple package. To begin with, it is a whole term unto itself and it's also an evolving acronym. There is a child form and an adult form. The child form is iDOS, whereas the adult form is the iD.OS. The “.” inserted into the adult form is a point of differentiation to highlight where there is a shift from a duality into a dialogic. Let’s take a closer look.

In its child form as an iDOS, it is a recognition of a universal pattern within human cognition which explores the duality that exists between the individual and the collective. It is the “essential idea”, an acknowledgement of a shared meaning-space. It is relational and exists between the individual and the world. It is the perspective that meaning does not enter the self from the world nor does it enter the world from the self. Neither of these are the source of meaningfulness. Rather, the connection between the self and the world is the source of meaning. It is alive in the moment of connection, and for the duration of the connection. At its heart is the duality of language and communication. Language is the vehicle of communication, communication affords the language. Both must be simultaneously present in order for either to be. The language is a common interface, a systematized medium. A conformable surface which exists as an affordance, to borrow from the work of psychologist James Gibson.

According to Gibson, organisms have a complementary relationship with their environment. Specific properties of the environment interact with the organisms biological composition in such a way that it affords an array of actions. There is a value delivered from the environment that boosts the agency of the organism, and in return, the higher agentic actions of the organism conform the surfaces of the environment to suit the agency of the organism. Through generations of mutation, the features of the organism conform to the niche within the environment that they inhabit. Or the behaviors adapt to the intention in the moment. A surface can be sat on or ran across.

Organisms exist as members of species, which are genetically organized to have the same general array of affordances and to seek the same general array of surfaces. If I find a surface that affords me a certain range of actions, then other members of my species should be able to find the same general range of actions available to them as well, and now have the opportunity to use that surface as a language for the purpose of communication and organization. This is a mutual affordance, and can be approached competitively or cooperatively. It is between an organism and the environment, as well as between organisms via the intermediary of the environment. All of human organization occurs via mutual affordances enabled through conformable surfaces within an agent-arena relational space. For humans to organize is to become a mutual affordance. This can be extended to all of life.

The acronym for the essential idea’s child form is:

“i” is a nod to the self, the I. It also references the dual nature of the “I” as being both intrapersonal (individual) and interpersonal (social).

“D” is in reference to the Dual-nature of all concepts that, in order to be a part of a language, must be communicative between individuals. In must be both personally meaningful as well as socially meaningful. This requires the presence of at least two OS’s to exist.

“O” is for operating, as in the performance of the affordances provided by the relation between the body and the surfaces of the world.

“S” is for system, to note for the multiplicity of distinct parts engaged in an organized interrelation.

iDOS: intra/interpersonal Dual Operating System.

In short, an iDOS is a placeholder for any concept that exists within the meaningful communication between a body and its world. Furthermore, it is an observation on the qualities that all concepts must possess in order to qualify as a unit of language. There is no one concept that can be identified as the exemplar of an iDOS, as all concepts which are capable of expressing a shared meaning are exemplars of an iDOS.

In its adult form as an iD.OS, we have a set of grouped mutual affordances which have been habituated into a spectrum of identity. It is the language of a culture, the mode which unifies all discourse within a population. Why a set of groups? The iDOS of the individual is a group of operating systems: the personal and the collective. An iD.OS exists as an organized set of individuals, each employing their own group of operating systems aligned upon the most common surfaces and the range of actions which is most valued by the group. The more diverse the values of a given group, then the more diverse the range of actions that can be afforded by a surface. The greater aggregate of value determines the meaningfulness of the connection which exists through the surface and is accessed by the actions which the surface affords.

German philosopher Martin Heidegger's once declared that "language is the house of Being”. From this perspective, language isn't merely a tool we use to describe reality; rather, it constitutes the fundamental way in which we dwell in the world. Through language, our existence becomes meaningful and intelligible. Language doesn't simply represent the world, it shapes how we experience and understand the world. When seeking to access this perspective, I approach language as, like with a house, possessing two types of architecture: local architecture and general architecture. Infrastructure and superstructure

As an iD.OS is the set of languages which act as an interface (conformable surfaces) for communication (mutual affordance), the entire set of surfaces this utilizes can be see as the general architecture of the social group, the language which houses the plurality of beings. Local architectures are viewed as rooms within the House, smaller sets of surfaces which afford a range of activity that is in some way useful to the broader reaches of the social group. Given the scale of the general architecture, no one person can directly use all surfaces at any given time. Instead they operate within the set of rooms which are most accessible and resonate to them. This set of “rooms”, or local area architectures (LAA’s), comprise the structure of their identity within the social group. In this way, individuals move by their respective iDOS while collectively fulfilling the super-structure of the general area architecture when the value they generate through the engagement of their available affordances has meaningful outputs into the other rooms in the iD.OS. Their network of affordance and value output is considered as a local area network (LAN) of languages. To occupy a room is to gain some affordance from every surface in the room. To be housed by a LAA, one must have a LAN that provides meaningful connections to the adjacent LAA’s which define the identities of the other members within the social group.

Every individuals experience of a meaningful reality is the affordance provided by the surface which is the iDOS. To develop a house for our Being is to cohabitate under, above, within and through a LAA of the LAN. A “law of the land” is an observance of the relationship that exists between a culture and their environment, and of the ordered values which provide mutual affordance for all. A LAA of the LAN is to formalize such a concept into an integrated set of languages which account for every surface valuable to its members as well as the full range of actions prioritized by the culture. It is to integrate all differentiation into a single expression over time. It is to craft a shared reality, and to use a shared reality as a vessel for a meaningful life.

Through a mutual reinforcement of the concept of this shared reality, it is reified for the individuals. The ground of our individual ignorance gains substance. The existence of actuality is delivered via revelation of the other. The world is where self and other meet to become one. The “world” in this case, is the iD.OS, which has become a novel surface in the environment. It is a created thing which, ironically, is both non-physical as well as the greatest point of contact between all members of the culture. It is the standardization of identity, crafted by the members to fit them as well as crafting the members to fit it.

The acronym for iD.OS is:

“i” is for infinite, to indicate the boundless nature of this relationship. It can be extended as far as there are individuals who can or will learn the LAA of the LAN for a given culture. It is trans-generational and can extend as far as there are generations who can or will carry it forward.

“D” is for dialogical, in that it exists not only as an integrated set of languages but as an active expression of them across culture and through time.

with “O” and “S” carrying the same meaning as before.

iD.OS: infinite dialogical operating system.

An iDOS has two operating systems: the personal which is the iDOS and the social which is the iD.OS. These are in a constant state of dialogue. A cultural operating system.

History of the Term

When coming to understand the nature of this term, it is important to understand the antecedent terms which constitute its perspective. All of the conceptual inputs are their own subject, complete unto themselves. They are not being taken whole cloth, as there are many specificities which comprise their unique nature that are not wholly relevant to understanding the nature of an iDOS. This article could not hope to address every part that is being brought into this new conception or every part which is being left behind. The goal of the article is merely to draw the eye to the relative influences, and to then seek a through line of connectivity from which this new concept is conceived.

There are three primary influences for the term. Eidos (plato), eidos (Gregory Bateson) and DOS (Computer science). As mentioned early, there are aspects being drawn from each of the sources which are instrumental in imaging the concept. There will be many aspects which are left behind. Most of the parts used in the term will be from the general architectures of their subjects, seeking to leave behind the specifics of their infrastructure. This is for many reasons, most of which will be explored later. For now, given the claim that this pattern is universal, the more salient of the reasons is that it is important for the parts to be substrate independent and not rely upon the specific grounding of their sources.

These sources will be listed in the order of their emergence throughout history.

The first source is from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato and lays the foundation for the form of the new term and provisions the most abstract layer of the concept. The term is “Eidos” and is the core of his theory of Forms. It is an “essential form” or purified pattern of abstraction which is the “perfect”, categorical version of its physical counterparts. In this view, a “chair” has many physical manifestations it takes, each unique unto itself as itself. It also has a non-physical form which is the idealized abstraction of it, which provides the general architecture for any physical form which follows. These forms can be abstracted but not represented as any representation of them is in physical form and is thus imperfect. The concept of the iDOS is agnostic as to whether or not there is a realm of pure forms which are extruding into our lived reality. The certainty of these conclusions are being left behind. However, there do appear to be categories which exist both in the world and in the psyche and that their essential forms appear to be withdrawn from perfect representation. In either framework, we have a single exemplar (Eidos) and we have a plurality of approximations (physical manifestations).

The second source is from anthropologist and system theorist Gregory Bateson, which extends the context of the original term, while providing a more practical layer for the terms context.

Some further reasoning on distancing the term of iDOS from the terms Eidos, eidos and DOS, is that the term iDOS is a standalone concept, it’s a seed for cultural conception. It is also a mental object. It is an imaginal event. It transposes the naked patterns from other concepts so as to compose its own structured representation. k

Abraxas and the Pleroma, eidos and khora

Egregores and Collective Unity

An egregore, in this context, is an iD.OS which has been characterized by the primary surface in the set.

iD-OS-Entity...identity. id-entity. Archetype.

The Transformation of Culture

The Sovereignty of the Dividual

iD.OS is more essential than iDOS. More powerful. Extended. It cannot be the first input.

iDOS is more fundamental than iD.OS. More important. Foundational. It cannot be the final output.

A LAA is a local area architecture, or the conceptual image of an environment seen as a set of discernably distinct surfaces as well as the set of affordances each surface allows or can be conformed to allow. This will be unique to every environment and its relation with each organism which is active within it.

iDOS: Where Embodied Cognition Meets Computational Architecture

5.44 KB •56 lines•Formatting may be inconsistent from source

# iDOS: Where Embodied Cognition Meets Computational Architecture

In the intricate landscape of cognitive frameworks, iDOS emerges as a fascinating synthesis—a theoretical architecture that bridges the seemingly disparate worlds of embodied cognition and computational processing. But to understand its profound implications, we must first unravel its rich historical lineage and multifaceted foundations.

## A Convergence of Three Streams

The architecture of iDOS flows from three distinct yet interconnected historical sources. First, it draws from Platonic concepts of eidos—those fundamental patterns or forms that structure reality itself. This philosophical heritage provides the framework's deep architectural grammar, suggesting ways that patterns manifest across different scales and domains of cognition.

Second, it incorporates anthropological insights about how cognitive structures emerge and evolve within human cultures. This dimension reveals how patterns of thought and understanding propagate across social networks, forming the basis for shared cognitive frameworks and collective intelligence.

Third, it inherits structural concepts from computational history—both the architectural principles of the Disk Operating System and the revolutionary interface paradigms pioneered by Apple's 'i' prefix products. This computational lineage contributes not just metaphors but concrete patterns for managing cognitive resources and processes.

## The Interface Nature of Mind

The 'i' in iDOS signifies something far more nuanced than mere individual interaction. It represents interface—not just between user and system, but between different modes of cognitive processing themselves. This interface principle operates at multiple levels:

- Between individual and collective cognition

- Between explicit and implicit understanding

- Between computational and biological processing

- Between intrapersonal and interpersonal cognitive domains

## The Dual Nature of Cognitive Processing

At its core, iDOS recognizes cognition as simultaneously individual and social. This dual nature manifests in its fundamental architecture, where cognitive processes operate across both intrapersonal and interpersonal domains. Individual cognition—our internal thought processes, pattern recognition, and decision-making—exists in constant dialogue with social cognition—our shared understanding, collective knowledge structures, and cultural patterns.

This duality isn't merely theoretical—it's built into the framework's basic processing architecture. Consider how patterns of understanding emerge: they arise not just from individual perception and processing, but from the complex interplay between personal insight and social meaning-making. This recognition leads to what we might call "networked cognition"—a mode of processing that remains true to both individual cognitive dynamics and collective intelligence structures.

## Architectural Principles: Beyond Simple Metaphor

While iDOS draws inspiration from operating system architecture, it transcends mere metaphorical mapping. Its dual processing architecture implements:

- Parallel processing streams that mirror neural networks

- Context-sensitive adaptation mechanisms

- Emergent pattern recognition

- Resource allocation protocols that respect biological constraints

- Error correction systems that learn from mistakes

These aren't simply computational processes dressed in biological clothing. Rather, they represent fundamental cognitive patterns that manifest across different substrates—patterns that emerge from the essential nature of embodied information processing itself.

## Beyond the Machine Metaphor

Perhaps most importantly, iDOS helps us move beyond the limiting metaphor of mind-as-computer. Instead, it suggests a more nuanced view: both biological and computational systems as manifestations of fundamental cognitive patterns, each with their own unique properties but sharing deep structural similarities.

This shift in perspective opens new possibilities for understanding both human cognition and computational systems. It suggests ways of designing systems that are more adaptable, more robust, and more capable of meaningful interaction with both human users and their environment.

## Looking Forward

As we continue to explore the frontiers of cognitive science and computational design, frameworks like iDOS become increasingly valuable. They remind us that the future of cognitive architecture lies not in choosing between biological and computational models, but in understanding how these approaches can inform and enrich each other.

The true power of iDOS lies in its recognition that cognition—whether biological or computational, individual or collective—is always embodied, always situated, and always engaged in meaningful interaction with its environment. This insight opens new pathways for development in both cognitive science and computer science, suggesting approaches that are more sophisticated, more nuanced, and ultimately more effective than traditional computational models.

In this light, iDOS represents not just a theoretical framework, but a new way of thinking about thinking itself—one that promises to shape the future of both human and machine cognition in profound and exciting ways.

---

*This article explores the foundations and implications of the iDOS framework. In future installments, we'll delve deeper into specific aspects of its architecture and examine real-world applications of its principles.*

Not only does everything within the universe have an iDOS, but every iDOS is inclusive of everything in the universe.

An iDOS is the “essential pattern” of an area of focus. An “essential pattern” is a map of the area of focus which is instrumental for the mind to grasp the concepts contained within the locus of attention. An iDOS covers a full span of inclusivity, ranging from the molecular level to the cosmic scale. A cup on a table has an iDOS in the sense that a solar system does, or even abstract concepts like theories of economics or physics. iDOS are not restricted to analytical or scientific models, they also are found in metaphorical or analogical concepts. It is important to note that an iDOS is a living process, it is the pattern as grasped by the mind in the moment. It uses representation as a necessary component, but it is representation performed as a process which is natural and innate within the mind i.e. imaginative and rational processes.

To begin the process as per Ein’Ra-Shah, expand the area of focus to envelope the entire universe (all of existence, non-existence and potential for either), and refine the scale from that point down to the smallest possible units that something might be composed of. So an iDOS would have a range from the highest and largest point of inclusivity to the lowest and smallest point of exclusivity. If the mind rebels at the thought of doing both of these simultaneously, that’s ok. Allow the mind to grasp one and then the other and then the space between these points individually, then move between them, oscillating the focus of attention while maintaining an awareness and allowance of the points not currently being focused upon.

As one focuses on the highest end of the scale, remember that all things are in process. A “view from the top” can yield a static image of the overarching structure of things, but the holistic concept is in motion so is grasped more fully as a series of still patterns which when viewed in series render a moving image.

As one focuses on the lowest end of the scale, they must be specifying towards a more particular subset of the overall pattern. The same applied principles as found in the higher end still apply, but there is the further awareness of all parallel particulars processing in tandem, even as they are not currently being focused upon.

As one focuses upon any of the intervening points, have all principles be present.

In the circumstance of the cup, there is not just the cup as it is, but also the surface it rests upon, the entire lifetime of the cup, what it is composed of, where those materials came from prior to the cup existing as an object/ process, what purposes for the cup as being ascribed by another being, etc. The same would apply to a solar system.

All of these examples as well as any other which might possibly be present within the aforementioned framework would constitute THE full-form iDOS. Furthermore, to complete the pattern, there must be a consideration of all other possible perspectives that could exist of the same pattern. While an iDOS must by necessity be present within an individual mind and perspective, it must also by necessity leave pockets of perspective for other views upon the same pattern.

iD.OS and Kora - Abraxas and the Pleroma

The unification of all differentiated emergences and the undifferentiated condition by which the differentiations emerge.

Symbolic Term Set - Logick

The co-articulation of multiple expressions of the same term set - LAN-gauge

iDOS is the living pattern, in order to build interface with the conditions that the pattern communicates through, the human mind trends towards understanding the whole in terms of grammar and syntax.

It constructs symbols which are in relational sets, allowing for definition in context. The relational set itself is a symbol.

To speak the LAN-guage until it integrates is to return the process state to the iDOS from its iConic representation and reproduction. There is a key distinction in that now there is a “.”/point of distinction which has been added to the pattern which acts as the mark by which intentional interface is affordeded. There is now a fulcrum for leverage.

Just as an individual has many languages, so too does a thing.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.