A Metaphysics of State and State Change

The North Star of this inquiry

‘States’ as the Conceptual Breakthrough

In opening up the metaphysical space of the last four posts, it became clear, after turning over and percolating these questions and concepts, that ‘state’ and ‘state change’ lie at the heart of this space, and are, or at least might be, a steady and solid ‘ground’ for considering some of the problems and questions so far, such as the embodiment problem, the problem of organizational kind, and the long list of questions that are bracketed throughout the posts in this inquiry. At least as it relates to these questions, ‘state’ is the metaphysical ground which feels most firm and appropriate: the concept (for me) which opens up and clears pathways for more and better inquiry, which feels uniquely capable in the labyrinth of metaphysical inquiry.

The Cosmos, then, is, or at least I would like to suggest is, a creative, fascinating, lively and intelligent exploration, interplay, evolution, and maintenance of states- states of all different varieties and kinds; and our own lives, insofar as this framing is used, are always unique and complex embodiments of our being and becoming through an expression of states; which is to say that it is through states that being always takes place, and it is likewise through the notion of states that we might consider the World more deeply, especially as it relates to the patterns or processes which are so difficult in trying to explain and grasp, namely, ones of the human mind and culture.

Going forward, then, ‘states’, will provide the grounding for considering some of the questions which have thus far been raised and bracketed- and will, in due time, be a vehicle for raising and bracketing more questions. In the rest of this post I hope to outline, briefly, some of the ways that ‘states’ might provide for such a centering.

Centering the Inquiry on the Notion of ‘State’

Like the other concepts here in this inquiry, ‘state’ is being used here in a more intuitive than detailed way, and although the exact definition might change, a potential definition might be:

the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.

But this definition is to a large degree self-explanatory, and I am more so inclined to leave ‘state’ as something that cannot be defined, or should not be defined, that state refers to, if anything, an organizations being in the world at a given time. The obvious tension here is that to talk about or consider ‘ontology’ one is necessarily in the realm of the ‘epistemology’, which is to say that such a lack of a definition is in itself a sort of definition, that ‘an organizations being in the world at a given time’ is, nonetheless, an epistemic adventure, and this tension, like others raised, will be bracketed for the time being. Broadly speaking, though, we might say that states are concerned with the governance, negotiation, embodiment, and entanglement of organizations, and in this post ‘state’ will be discussed with this loose definition in mind, but also built on and further discussed, since a definition alone never truly grasps the many interesting things that might be said about a concept.

We might say that a ‘state’ is always contextual and within a specific world and is, above all else, a relational expression. A state necessarily speaks to a relationship between organizations, perhaps of different kinds, or even, and probably most often, about the relationship between an organization and its ‘environment’ more generally. As such, a ‘state’ is always about the entanglement of organizations, or about the entanglement of organizations and their ‘environment’,¹ and the way in which this relationship appears or manifests.

Just to provide a simple example, ‘feeling cold’ is a state that both reflects the state of the environment and an organization, or organism, that feels cold under certain conditions. Such a state says something both about the environment and the structure of the organism which both ‘measures’ or ‘interprets’ the environment in a certain way and responds accordingly and systematically by producing a certain feeling: an organism interprets the environment by producing such a state of coldness, which depends not only on the organism, or the environment, but in the entanglement between the two.

States not only speak to what we experience, or the organizations we are entangled to, but the various relationships that this enables: states are our way of being entangled in the World. This is not only the case for ‘human embodiment’ (of which this inquiry is concerned primarily), but also for any kind of organization: being is always in the form of states.²

And going back to the example on ‘coldness’ above, we might also also briefly point out that the ‘state of the environment’ can be reflected both in ‘feeling cold’, but also in a thermometer, which describes the temperature of the environment through a scientific instrument. Which is to say, perhaps quite obviously, that for two organizations the same thing might be interpreted differently³, or different states might be produced, or at least states of a vastly different degree of complexity. Although this seems straightforward, the tension here is that ‘science’ or ‘scientific inquiry’, for the most part, is concerned with measuring states through scientific measurements and methods, which always try and reach an objective measurement through a scientific tool or software or point of view. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but provides an incomplete picture of the World: scientific tools are only one way of interpreting the states of the World, and ‘science’, as it is mostly practiced, does not allow for the various interpretations of the same thing, because the measurement apparatus of specific states is always, or mostly, meant to be ‘objective’. Which is to say that it is, to a large degree, ‘simple’, or ‘technological’ or at least not as complex as the possible measurement and interpretation of an environment through an embodied human organism.

This artistic inquiry, broadly speaking, might be understood as a way to explore the space of how ‘states’ are embodied in human organisms, or psychic organizations, or cultural organizations, and how this territory might be further explored in more functional terms and language. A thoroughly mechanistic epistemology and research process has trouble speaking about these more complex interpretations of states because it mostly measures and interprets the states (and patterns) of the world in more ‘simple’ or technological ways- which is not in itself a bad thing, but provides an incomplete picture of the World, especially as we consider processes or organizations which might not be spatially bound, or at least measured so easily, like ‘psychic’ ones.

Insofar as we might explore ways to draw a clearer distinction between these processes of ‘measurement’ or ‘interpretation’ in a more ‘scientific’ sense, and a more ‘embodied’ sense, we might draw a certain inspiration from the Heideggerian distinction of ‘technological’ and ‘poetic’ ‘attunement’⁴; and although not a perfect analogy, we might say that scientific inquiry is normally a kind of technological attunement or interpretation of the states of the world, or even a ‘mechanical’ one; and human embodiment, or ‘psychic unfolding’, or social organizations, necessarily (or mostly, perhaps, for social ones) are in the realm of poetic attunement, of a measurement or interpretation which requires a more complex and lively apparatus for interpretation and engagement- which is to say, through human embodiment. ‘Embodiment’ is our own measuring or interpretation device for the states of the World, especially psychic and social states- and it is interesting to ask: how can this method of knowing and interpretation be talked about and built on in a more ‘scientific’ way, or at least in a way that can more adequately, creatively, and meaningfully speak about as it relates to ‘psychic’ or ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ organizations?

This particular tension was raised early on this inquiry when discussing the paper ‘Where is the ground’? which explores, through a brilliant dialogue, how social systems are outside the realm of the existing scientific mood and research process- and many of the central questions of this inquiry rest on these similar tensions. As the authors point out, a ‘social organization’ (or system) cannot be understood or measured through the current ‘scientific epistemology’ that a lot of research demands, which requires a physical substrate so as to measure specific states. Indeed, social, cultural or psychic organizations do not necessarily reside in a uniformly embodied physical substrate and, as such, could require ‘measurement’ or ‘interpretation’ of states in more poetic terms, or through human embodiment, or at least in terms which require us to stretch our imagination of how to ‘scientifically’ engage with them.

And so (as is often pointed out by others as well) much of the way scientific research that is done requires a physical substate, and thus requires the ‘technological’ or ‘simple’ measuring of states in a physical substrate; but we want to understand more subtle things about the World, about psychic and social and cultural states in the World and their patterns and how they work, their organizations, in more ‘poetic’ or lively or complex ways. And if we are to further boil down this point, we might summarize the following tension as such: that there are such things as social, or psychic, or cultural organizations (wherever the delineation lies), and they do have states and patterns and form, but they cannot be understood and they cannot be talked about when we only consider states as residing in a psychical substrate, of measuring them in simple or technological ways- they instead are properly understood or interpreted through human embodiment, and this invites us to consider the following question: how can this interpretation method through the human body be ‘integrated’ into the ‘scientific method’, and how can dialogue around psychic and social or cultural organizations be illuminated by this method of interpretation?

And as this inquiry is more generous in suggesting concepts and problems- and this is very much the purpose of this inquiry- we might, for now, consider this here as the interpretation problem (which might, and probably does, have another more accurate framing elsewhere, although I am not sure where) which puts pressure on the problem of how psychic or social or cultural states, or states that are not measurable in a physical substrate, require us to engage with and reflect on the vast and complex realities of human embodiment and how our own human embodiment can be understood as the method of interpretation for ‘scientific’ inquiry into psychic or even cultural states. Said differently, psychic (and perhaps social and cultural) states are embodied and engaged with and interpreted through other psychic states (and not ‘scientific measuring devices’ or surveys); which is to say, it is a living process and engagement. And if we are more imaginative in the phrasing of our questions here, we might say, how can science come to life? Or, perhaps, can we stumble on the intersection where science meets poetry?

Whatever the case, within this inquiry we are concerned broadly with some of the questions that follow from this situation: namely, what can be said about ‘psychic’ or ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ organizations? Or even, how are they interpreted and measured? How are they exchanged in terms of states? What is a psychic or social or cultural state? And, of course, what are psychic and social organizations and events?

However these questions grow and evolve into other questions or potential speculations, we might also point out that the concept of ‘state’ invitingly opens up a door to consider ‘value’, since states are fundamentally expressions of different kinds of values, or of whatever a human being, or groups of human beings, or an organization of any kind, values. I won’t say much on this here, since there is so much to say on this point that to begin discussing it would require another long discussion- but such an exploration will be made later on, and might very well serve as a foundation of the inquiry going forward.

States, as suggested above, might also be a way to consider more clearly the notion of 'embodiment’, since our complex life of human embodiment is always an expression of a specific state, or perhaps a number of different states, at a specific time. Returning to some of the language thus far introduced in this inquiry, we might say that ‘Psychic unfolding’ is our way of embodying and exploring ‘states’ that psychic or cultural or social organizations enable; we additionally might say that ‘Psychic homeostasis’ is concerned with the maintenance of specific states of human embodiment, or is our way of finding a stable attractor or form of psychic states. Building off of this point, when we consider the possibility of ‘psychic boundaries’, a fascinating space for exploration opens up- which thus far has only received little attention here- and we might posit that when we consider this notion we are considering the possible states human beings allow themselves to embody, or allow themselves to associate with, however this process may look.

But the broad and sweeping insight as to why ‘states’ seem at least now to be a firm metaphysical grounding is the intuition that all different kinds of organizations have and maintain ‘states’ of different kinds; and we might even say that it is the purpose or goal of organizations to explore and maintain specific states, and further, that it is through a perspective of ‘states’ that we might better understand the psychic and social or cultural world, or even the biological world, and in doing so talk about psychic or cultural or social organizations more gracefully.

And we might, if only briefly, address the question raised at the very beginning of this inquiry, the question that this inquiry is based on, namely: how do we manage the spiritual complexity of lives?

And here we might say that it is concerned with the maintenance and exploration of certain kinds of states- whatever those are and however they might be talked about or described or interpreted, and whether this involves in terms of psychic or social or cultural or ecological organizations and their patterns.

Indeed, we might also consider the problem of organizational kind through the lens of the different kind of ‘states’ that they enable and point to: that a biological organization, if such a categorization feels appropriate, points to and considers biological states, that a social or psychic or cultural or intelligible organization would do the same, and so on (and that is indeed the suggestion or implication that is throughout this post).

Regardless of how these questions are investigated further, at this point it seems appropriate, at least in my mind, to invite a wider question- if only for the possibility of opening up a more broad discussion on the ‘shift in worldview’ that many discuss and are concerned with:

Namely, if modern and post modern inquiry or philosophy is mostly (although not entirely) concerned with the human subject, and particularly a human subject which is capable of reason and learning the mechanics of the World and constructing a society based on the enlightened and appropriate application of these principles, then is it possible that this current period of transformation might shift from the ‘human subject’ at its center towards the notion of ‘state’ at its center? ‘State’, importantly, as the contextual and unique expressions of organizations of different forms: ‘psychic’ states, social states, or cultural states, ecological states, states of various and complex kinds, states that express ‘novelty’ and states as the ongoing expression of patterns of self-organization and self-maintenance? ‘States’ as the way that the Cosmos expresses itself in different kinds of organizations, and moreover, the interpretation of states as the way in which organizations, including ‘psychic’ or social ones entangle and co-exist?

I am not saying this is necessarily the case, I am only raising the question, which may or may not endure even through this inquiry. But I invite the worthwhile consideration: can the concept of ‘state’ be a metaphysical ‘centering’ for the ongoing ‘shift in worldview’?

Indeed, the concept of ‘state’ and ‘state change’ as such ‘in the center’ is not an attempt towards ‘a theory of everything’ but instead a way of opening up discourse on ‘states’, making ‘states’ the perspective for exploring questions on subjectivity, entanglement, value, ‘science’, culture, and so on. It is not an ‘answer’ or a dead end, it does not serve to provide a static answer: it is a broad movement and direction, one that aims to be flexible and to embrace the fluidify of the World in its many forms, and which opens up more questions and potential discourse.

The Questions that Remain

Although this post attempted to briefly discuss the ways in which the notion of ‘state’ might provide a way to consider and ‘wrap ones head’ around some of the questions in this inquiry, especially as they relate to ‘science’ and to things which ‘science’ cannot meaningfully address or consider, like human embodiment, this leaves a number of questions to be bracketed. And as these questions are bracketed, ‘state’, despite having a more ‘intuitive’ definition, might be a firm ground upon which to consider some of these questions. Of course, ‘state’ is not a theory of everything: it is a perspective or metaphysical grounding which opens up a potentially more graceful way to consider certain questions as it relates to ‘human embodiment’, ‘social organization’, or ‘cultural organization’, and this complex intersection which requires more creative and curious inquiry.

But this all leaves with some interesting questions:

What is a psychic state? What is a cultural, or social state? What is a psychic cycle, or event? Are different ‘organizational kinds’ categorized by the kinds of states that they enable? What is the relationship between an ‘event’ and a ‘state’? Is an ‘event’ a moment in time in which a new state is repeated, or a new state emerges? Perhaps: but like many questions in this inquiry, these will be bracketed and considered slowly, since most questions, at least ones that require a metaphysical mood, take a long time to consider, and it is often in the routines or movements of everyday life, when we are walking to the store or riding the train, or precisely when we are not thinking about them, where they are given the proper conditions to sort themselves out, however long that might take.

1. Putting ‘environment’ in quotes because I have not addressed what this means yet, despite it being a necessary concept to explore here.

2. And we might more broadly say that the ‘mutual synthesis of organism and environment’ must occur through states.

3. Given that one sees a ‘thermometer’ as an organization, which I would.

4. I’m sure there is probably a more appropriate analogy to draw here, but using this one because I don’t know it yet.