Part 4: Attributes Status

Those who may have found the amount of terminology from the previous chapters tiresome, will be relieved that Part 3 has a lower burden on this respect. But this does not mean that Attributes Status is less important. In fact, this section presents a highly contentious set of axioms that require additional focus and development. Let’s refresh the Attributes Status definition and introducing its components: ATTRIBUTES STATUS: EIC step that studies the interstitial physiology processes of Behavior Dynamics. flowchart TB A(**Attributes Status**) --> B(Attribute Concatenation) A --> C(Status Dichotomies) A --> D(Interstitial Physiology) Just like in Attributes Structure, we begin by applying attribute operators to attribute pairs. But instead of using accentuation inside attribute pairs, this time we’ll use the concatenation operator between attributes of different pairs. ...

We can’t handle the new attribute pairs in the same way we did with Structure Quadrants. Instead of having four equivalent elements, we have two distinctive pairs. Consistency and impermanence are unique enough to be the target of accentuation, but Balance and Imbalance are status conditions and should always be available. So, we can have the elements of the first pair separated, but the second pair is indivisible—not in the sense of being conceptually fused, but in the sense that the potential of both must always be preserved. ...

Most complex systems are either biological or artificial in nature. Biological systems (from microbes to intelligent animals) evolved with a survival drive, which we’ll call a perdurability longing. Artificial systems (from basic tools to advanced A.I.) are constructed with a performance ambition, which we’ll call a functionality longing. The interaction between these longings and the previous interstitial dichotomies creates a special kind of structure, contained under the label of Interstitial Physiology. ...

While both longings express themselves well in isolation, their combined presence is problematic. In essence, each longing predisposes a system toward the undesirable pole of its counterpart dichotomy: Functionality Longing predispose Imperdurability. Symbolic representation: C≡L → (I≡ ^ I≢) = I≡. When a mixed system is working in a functional manner, you can’t expect this state to be permanent. You’ll have constant adversities, both internal and external, that will challenge its functionality. And if you don’t take proper precautions, you will lose this optimal condition. Perdurability Longing predispose Dysfunctionality. ...

Despite our desire for continuous functionality or perdurability, no system can sustain its optimal status forever. Decay will deteriorate even a healthy system, and it will lead eventually to an end state. For Organic Systems: Healthy state: Perdurable (maintains existence over time) Intermediate decay: Physiological Sickness (decline in perdurability) End state: Dead System (perdurability lost) For Instrumental Systems: Healthy state: Functional (performs intended purpose) Intermediate decay: Physiological Breakage (decline in functionality) End state: Destroyed System (functionality lost) For Mixed Systems: ...