the upward cascade

[rough]
alright, since this is the story of a system made up of nested nonlinear systems, it can not be told linearly. i am forced to write a trajectory which slowly betrays the shape and tendencies of the system, as to suggest some manner of characterization.

the following will be an introduction to the unifying language. it follows from some realizations and notes that i came upon during my undergraduate studies, which i then found similarly expressed (and better articulated) in robert pirsig's lila. i will use our notation interchangeably, and possibly in a note somewhere, sometime, i will take a second to differentiate and detail our initial differences in notation.

the main idea is based on the recognition that, as we understand the universe, there seem to be more or less discrete levels of organization in the whole of phenomena. i mean to make distinctions between levels of substrate that occur on different size and time scales: atomic, chemical, biological, social, intellectual, etc...
essentially we can turn to the disciplines of science to show us which phenomena are distinct enough to warrant different descriptive languages.
(of course, i do not mean to suggest that the universe can be simply decomposed into these parts understood when each are understood. that would essentially suggest that the universe was linear in some sense, that the whole can be described by describing its parts.)
one may come to contemplate the relationships between these levels, and realize that organization and evolution on one level gives rise to the emergence of phenomena on the next level. for instance, if one was interested in understanding an atom, one would do well to use the language developed by physicists. if one wanted to understand the interaction of two or more atoms, this language might still be useful, but eventually, the language of chemistry would be more useful. what we understand as chemical phenomena is phenomena which emerges from atomic aggregations and interactions. likewise, what we understand as biological phenomena emerges from interactions of chemical aggregations. social phenomena are a consequence of aggregate interactions between biological entities. these are some of the bigger examples, and even in their exposition, i am for the moment not being terribly thorough. a fair treatment of each would take a considerable amount of caution. at the moment, we are trying to roughly frame the bigger picture, so that we can make some higher level remarks.
in general, we may think about one level of phenomena as emerging from aggregation and interactions on another lower substrate level. we might say, in describing a single instance of such, that a "superstrate level", or "superstratum" emerges from a "substrate level" or "substratum". in this perspective, we may think of the universe historically as a sequence of successive instances of emergence, creating ever increasing amounts of complexity and structure on different scales. each superstrate emerging, and then becoming the substrate of the next emergence.
as not to neglect the rampant subtleties involved, i will note again that the superstrate and the substrate interact in highly nontrivial ways, often beyond causality and support. phenomena on the superstrata may very well emerge, and have an effect back on the substrate from which it emerged. this will/may be somewhat further articulated at some later point.

the point of introducing this notation is to have a descriptive language which accesses the various scales of phenomena. quite often, the most vexing issues that humans run into are ones which pertain to multiple scales at once. it is challenging to think about these situations, and to make decisions about them because humans do not yet have a linguistic framework with which to entertain multiple scales of phenomena at once. at best, people have a dilemma, and resort to trying to determine what is "best" somehow. this reduces to determining what is "good", or "bad" in a given context. this is the tricky part, as it often requires recognizing multiple pros and cons which have to somehow be balanced in some mildly justifiable way.
this kind of deliberation can be greatly aided by the recognition that it is not simply that "good" and "bad" are context dependent, and that value in general is this vague shifting mysterious presence in the universe. in fact, with the language developed above, i will suggest that each level of phenomena carries its own sense of value. for instance, in the biological realm, "value" is often called referred to as "fitness". in the absence of social interactions, there are certain behaviors that are especially fit. such behaviors are fundamentally "selfish". an animal is not terribly fit if it does not eat as much as it can at every opportunity, or have sex at every opportunity, or intimidate/kill competitors or potential threats at every opportunity. these are biological imperatives that are woven into the cognitive reflexes of animals. they are imperatives that serve organisms well in an environment of scarcity and competition. to follow these impulses is fundamentally "good", in a strictly biological context. although we are still compelled by these imperatives, we humans tend to recognize that this metric of what is "good" is fundamentally incomplete. there is something beyond it which we sense, namely a sense of social "good". there is some sense of social value within us which puts constraints on the degree to which biological value compels us. a human who only followed biological imperatives would be universally recognized as inhuman, and detestable. in fact, for the most part, what humans consider to be crimes and "inhumanities" are instances where people forfeit social value in favor of biological value. stealing, raping, killing... these fall quite in line with biological values, and yet, we understand that they are inappropriate for humans to do. thus, in more slim language,
(A.) it is socially "bad", or socially "unfit" to be too biologically fit.

we also understand that
(B.) it is socially unfit to be too biologically unfit.

People who are self-destructive (neglectful) by passivity, cowardice, or who under-nourish themselves are recognized as not socially fit.

[ quick mathematical note: if one thinks of superstrata value as a function of substrata value, then in the case of social value as a function of biological value, A and B would suggest that social value is a nonlinear function of biological value.]

similarly, we can examine the various relationships between the other substrata/superstrata. though there is much to still be seen, we may have a preliminary understanding that, from the existence of social structure among organisms which have central nervous systems, the structures which emerge are psychological. these structures are essentially two: emotional patterns, and intellectual patterns. the emotional patterns tend more to respond to and encode information about external or personal/social circumstances. intellectual patterns tend to respond to and encode information about impersonal/internal circumstances. much more about these later, but for the moment, we may suggest that being too socially fit can be intellectually unfit, as in the situation where one forfeits a personal belief, or allows their behavior to defy their knowledge in order to comfortably assimilate into a social system. a lack of social fitness is also unfit intellectually, as people who are completely isolated from others tend to have narrow, maladapted perspectives.

there is plenty nuance and detail to be sought out within these observations, but i will leave that for future selves, or others for the moment. the main imagery to come away with is the fact that phenomena emerge from lower level substrate phenomena, and with each emergence, there is a new context in which value can have meaning. this facilitates a nature which is comprised of systems nested in systems, each level having some distinct meaning of "value", or fitness. these systems interact with each other as they emerge, and their value systems emerge and evolve tangled interdependently across the different scales of phenomena.