Am 08.06.2025 um 17:37 schrieb Dr. Dr. Thomas Fröhlich <dr.thomas.froehlich@t-online.de>:

ich danke Dir für Deine wie immer sehr hifreichen Anregungen und Literaturhinweise! Ich habe daraufhn den sich unterscheidenden Fokus meines Ansatzes gleich noch einmal deutlich zu machen versucht.

Die transition state theory, auf der sich der Autor u.a. bezieht wurde ja von Michael Polanyi mitgeprägt, der zusammen mit Henry Eyring die chemische Reaktionskinetik zu entwickeln half. Sein Konzept des impliziten Wissens ähnelt einem potentia-actus-Konzept…

Moin Thomas,

neben der transition state theory (TST) wird ja auch Bezug genommen auf das ‘Worm Like Chain’ (WLC) model und Kettenmodellen, wie bspw. die Nose–Hoover chains, wobei ich auch an die 3d-Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) chains denke und nicht zuletzt an Erweiterungen der TST, wie etwa die Variational TST. Mir sind Bezeichnungen wie „implizites Wissen“ oder „potentia-actus-Konzept" zu vage. Ebenso ergeht es mir mit der Unterscheidung von spezifischer und allgemeiner Zeit. Menschen generieren ja vielerlei objektivierbare Zeiten, bspw. zelluläre, organische, organismische und gesellschaftliche Zeiten mit je spezifischen Grenz- oder Mittelwerten der jeweiligen Reproduktionen hinsichtlich DNA-Replikation, Reizleitung, Herzschlag, Atmung, zirkadianem Rhythmus, Schwangerschaftsdauer, Erstgeburtsalter und Lebenserwartung.

Imperiendauern und gefühlte Zeiten gibt es so viele wie es Imperien bzw. Menschen gibt. Archäologen, Geschichts- und Sozialforschende sowie Chronobiologen werden die Zusammenhänge und Abhängigkeiten zumindest ansatzweise behandelt haben. Mir sind dabei besonders Peter Kafka und Anders Levermann in den Sinn gekommen. Beide haben wir hier wiederholt thematisiert. Zur Erinnerung: Kafkas Motto war „Vielfalt und Gemächlichkeit statt Einfalt und Schnelligkeit" und Anders Levermann trat hervor mit einem Lob der Kreativität: "The folding of art: avoiding one’s past in finite space“. Kreativen geht es um die Überwindung von Traditionen. Nicht die einfältige Wachstumsgesellschaft ist zu fördern, vielmehr kreative Alternativen unter Einschränkungen:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.10735

"Through-out human history the new generations have sought to create their own artistic style while trying to avoid repeating, for example, earlier generations’ music. If we assume that this search occurs in a multi-dimensional but confined space of creativity, this gives rise to highly complex dynamics. We present a very simple mathematical model with two parameters which can serve as a generic representation for past avoidance in finite space and is qualitatively distinct from earlier dynamical systems. In the presented radially confined form, the trajectory preserves its complexity while retracting to the vicinity of a hypersurface of constant radius when considered in higher dimension.“ Liefert Levermann nicht ein einfaches Beispiel für "Trans-individual creation of individuality“?

Trans-individual creation of individuality: the general scheme of creating non-general individuality
The physical properties of DNA, serving as a graphical template of semantic inside-generation in the proposed approach have been studied extensively (Lit see for example Michel Peyrard (2004) Nonlinear dynamics and statistical physics of DNA, Nonlinearity 17 (2004) R1–R40, DOI: 10.1088/0951-7715/17/2/R01, available at: stacks.iop.org/Non/17/R1, last accessed, June 8^th, 2025. Yet, a general scheme of creating non-general individuality has not been explored, most probably because it is based on time, that is, on generating specific timing within general time, and not on space. Individuality is primarily a mode of time and not of space. Being focused on spatial properties like spatial shape, spatial distances, spatial instead of temporal fields, observation starts with position, and not with action. Focusing on action as co-activity converging from distinct sources differs from considering action primarily on the form of spatial motion of one single observed entity. The latter’s behavior may be completely passive and lack the quality of being an individualizable source of coaction as interaction. Different to the input provided by two or more independent agencies, its contribution to shaping the resulting interaction is limited to trans-individual parameters like mass, temperature, internal spatial geometry et cetera.
Action considering the other’s action, embedded in both the own and the other’s doing takes not existent before in the concerning middle, it co-creates a co-activity-resulting inside made of not only the interaction partners’ individual activity but also of their mutual consideration, adaptively transforming the non-related activity into a genuinely related and relational one. So, the activities continue to emerge from their own sources but alter into implying relationally oriented and specified consideration. The interaction does not combine the original activities but changes these precursors in a mutually dependent, bilaterally enriching way. It is this selective preference lived as orientation together with the iterated notice and consideration of the partner’s intrinsic content that generates a content transcending the previously dynamic one. The specific in-between-distinct-sources quality then corresponds to the emergence and coming to live of something not there and alive before, an in-between quality as the interacting processes’ interactional semantic, distinctively relational interior contrasting the separated, non-relational past of the isolated precursor process with a newborn identity, that in turn is able to act in its own right, enacting its own, individual perspective, shedding new light to further actional sources acting as its temporally defined outside, to become part of its potential future. So, the definition of inside versus outside here has a generative quality, it is based on a distinct form of timing different to the ancestors’ timing, a newly emerged form of temporality.
Replacing the exclusively spatial meaning of being-inside by a dynamic- and emergence-related temporal one changes it from an arbitrarily changeable one, depending only of the posing agency’s will to a mutually dependent, provision- and structured implementation-dependent one. This temporal, action-sourced inside consisting of qualified and qualifying interaction cannot be dissected from the originating sources any more: because of its categorical generative post- and co-existence dependency it cannot be replaced by another, independent one, treating it as a seemingly single, isolated, not genesis-dependent entity. So, we have an integer whole as a mutually considering co-dynamic that cannot be cracked into elementary pieces and single contributors without losing its identity. It inheres adjusted, informed temporality in enriched combination, dynamically transcending the precursors’ one.