Summarization

Polysingularity is a soma~cognitive practice that helps reach non-equilibrium stability through perceptual diversification. Unlike financial diversification the intention is not to reduce exposure to a particular asset or risk, but, rather, to increase exposure to every asset and risk that is worthwhile, to not be the one, but to be many, to find shapes that are not somebody else’s but that are one’s own, to not belong to one center, but to create trajectories that form patterns in space~time phase space.

This journal documents the latest proceedings of Polysingularity into carefully organized categories (Books), which can then be used to induce altered states of consciousness in order to bring one closer to the limits of oneself.

These may be reenacted through texts [firmware upgrades for the body/mind operational system in human-readable language] as well as software, interfaces, physical and social practices and audio-visual materials developed in collaboration with Nodus Labs and Special Agency.

Polysingularity practice functions in short-term iterations, delivering frequent updates to the already existing releases. This process happens in line with the principles of agile development, occasionally diverting towards uncharted territories, experimenting with itself and its own relation to whatever it is that can be considered as finished.

 
 
Contact Information

Polysingularity is produced, maintained and developed by Dmitry Paranyushkin / Nodus Labs.
+33 6 20 28 44 80
dmitry ((at)) noduslabs ((.)) com

 
 

Simplification

Let’s imagine this world as a world made out of many different islands. Every island is unique and provides a different point of view onto the rest of the world. Still, it is one world, but it is one of the many possible ones.

Polysingularity is a practice of bridging those islands, maintaining diversity and yet unifying the different perspectives and qualities together into a|n in|coherent whole. Synchronizing the frequencies across different bands and spectrums. Resolving multiple originating circumstances for the phenomena that occur. Multiple universes merging into one. Networked co-isolated singularities seen as one and many. Zooming in and zooming out.

To decipher further: soma = body, cognitive = mind, soma~cognitive = bodymind, non-equilibrium = not looking for any balance, giving priority to what’s needed, getting rid of unneeded, stability = replication of same, non-equilibrium stability = changing perspectives through shifting between different sets of priorities when it’s necessary, but not necessarily at a whim or at the first convenience.

 

Singularization

Some fellow travelers ask about the difference between Polysingularity and Singularity.

To put it simply:
Singularity is moving towards one dot, the center, the (new) Origin.
Polysingularity is moving towards the many dots, multiple centers, and no specific origin.

Singularity claims that things are getting more and more interconnected and generally doesn’t oppose this tendency, because it’s considered to be progress and because the new form of consciousness will emerge as a result.
Polysingularity claims that diversity and variability are important elements of complex systems: any intensification in connectivity should encounter limitations in order to grow in many different directions and not only in one, so that the newly emerging form of consciousness is robust, adaptable, and self-aware.

 

Conceptualization

Polysingularity is an emergent concept in science that describes the inherent capacity of complex systems to be different depending on how interaction occurs between the different parts.

For example, if we take a group of twenty people where everyone knows each other, it would be much more prone to adopt a certain trend of behavior than a group of the same size but comprised of three distinctly separated communities – the so-called “small world” network (Zhou et al 2007; Kuperman & Abramson 2001; Bragard et al 2007). Therefore, we’re dealing with a similar multiplicity but the way the parts interact defines the behavior and the capacities of this multiplicity on the global scale.

The same thing happens in our interactions with the environment. When we encounter a certain situation we perceive its affordances: the network of relations between the environmental features and our abilities (Gibson 1979; Turvey 1992; Chemero 2003, 2008).  Change a point of view, forget something, think of something else – and the new features will become visible. Escape the predictable course of events, relax your neck, breathe slower – and the new possibilities will emerge. Thus, the situation has the capacity to be in a lot of different ways through interactions between the environmental features and personal abilities.  If we constantly rewire those elements to remind ourselves that things have inherent capacity to be otherwise, then we experience polysingularity of perception and action in everyday life.

The term “Polysingularity” has originally been used mainly by Russian mathematicians to describe a special class of integral equations with multiple simultaneous solutions (Simonenko, 1965; Boikov, 2000; Gabdulkhaev, 2005). Integral equations, to put it simply, help you find the rule that produces a certain rate of change. They are the reverse of differential equations that describe processes in time. So the solutions of polysingular integral equations are all the different functions (or rules) that lead to the behavior that is being studied. Thus, we look at a process that generates change and instead of finding the reason(s) behind it, we find the many different equations that are in place and see all their possibilities for interaction that can produce such change.

 

Contextualization

This particular journal is an archive of dispatches from another dimension, a parallel universe, a different time-scale-position (sometimes from the future, sometimes from the past). In their intent they deliver a practice of coming in sync with the universal life flow on both cognitive and somatic levels.

Some of the emanations are purposefully obfuscated, language may be corrupted, sentences don’t fully end (the reason for that is the originating species didn’t know the language so well, failures in machine translations and such, freedom from limitations of the grammatical forms, leaving some threads open for interpretations and such). They consist of field studies, and observations – often carrying dream-like obscurity of an alienated sight – something achieved by the double-position of an agent both on the outside and inside the actual curse of events.

“Happy, and without a name, the creature knocks at the gates of the land of the magi, who speaks in gestures alone.”

 

References

Agamben, G. (2005). Magic and Happiness

Boikov, I. V. (2001). Numerical Methods of Computation of Singular and Hypersingular Integrals. 3, 127-179.

Bragard, J., Vidal, G., Mancini, H., Mendoza, C., & Boccaletti, S. (2007). Chaos suppression through asymmetric coupling. Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.)

Chemero, A. (2003). An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195.

Chemero, A. (2008). Self-Organization, Writ Large. Ecological Psychology, 20(3), 257-269.

Gabdulkhaev, B. G. (2005). Polysingular integral equations with positive operators, 49(11), 2005.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. (C. University, Ed.)of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and (Vol. 39, p. 332). Houghton Mifflin.

Kuperman, M., & Abramson, G. (2001). Small World Effect in an Epidemiological Model. Physical Review Letters, 86(13), 2909-2912.

Paranyushkin, D (2011). Visualization of Text’s Polysingularity Using Network Analysis. Prototype Letters, 2(3), 256-278

Simonenko, I. (1965). A new general method for researching linear operational integral equation. 29, 567-586.

Strolman, P (1990). Memoirs. Change. Progression. The Annual Journal of Russian Academy of Science, 24(2), 126-145.

Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3).

Zhou, J., Liu, Z., & Li, B. (2007). Influence of network structure on rumor propagation. Physics Letters A, 368(6), 458-463