In the previous section we have learned how to enhance observational skills through constructing ad-hoc cognitive networks.

The essence of this approach is to represent a situation as a set of dynamic relations (a network) and to then take different positions within the network to change the perspective and get several points of view (zooming in to the local singularities). The constructed set of relations itself should also be reconfigured and transformed, so it is possible to access several different global view points and change the context of observation (zooming out).

The next step, after learning to observe the networks, is to find how one can find intention and act within. In order to do that, we will introduce several basic concepts and tools from network science. We will then use these tools and ideas to show how to modulate structural properties of the cognitive networks that we construct.

Networks are made from the nodes, which represent more or less stable entities, and from the edges, which represent relations / connections between those entities. 

Any situation or process can be described with many different network graphs, depending on what you choose to encode as the nodes and the edges. This is important to realize, because it shows that there can be many different network representations for one situation. Each will provide a different point of view and that is the first step in cognitive reconfiguration practice: to be able to observe from different network perspectives at once.

For example, you could describe a social network in a group as a graph where the nodes are the people and the connections are the relations between them (the edge is drawn between the nodes that are “friends”):

In this graph, Ali is friends with the most people: Ben, Dora and Mike. Mike and Dora are also friends. However, Alice is a friend of Mike and is new to the group, while Ben is only friends with Ali. 

Over time, as those people met and had a conversation, they positioned themselves differently in space and self-organized themselves into small circles and subgroups:

Ben really liked Mike’s friend Alice, so moved closer to them and is not sitting next to Ali anymore. This is a new graph representation of the social situation where the relations are encoded on the basis of spatial proximity rather than “friend” status.

At first, Ali, Dora and Mike were the dominant group, a cluster, or a community based on “friendship” – because they were more closely connected together than the rest of the people. However, over time, a new cluster emerged: Mike, Ben and Alice, which is now constructed on the basis of personal interest and spatial proximity. 

Let’s model another kind of situation. You are reading this text, which is talking about network science, which you are accessing through the internet, which was modeled using those same concepts as well:

This graph shows us relations between the processes and entities that we are engaged in, from a certain point of view.

We can already see that some nodes are mode densely connected together than others, forming communities. In this case it’s “this text”, “network science” and “internet” that belong to one cluster (each of those is connected to one another. “You” are connected to that cluster through the “internet” and “this text”, which both let you access some ideas about “network science”.

Now you can start adding more information into the graph, which will produce a more enhanced point of view on the situation. 

For instance, we can say that you were drawn to this whole topic because of your work and while you’ve been making a research on internet / Google you somehow arrived to the website of NodusLabs, which has a lot of articles on network analysis written by Dmitry (just like this text) and that’s how you discovered what you’re reading right now:

This graph is a very simplified version of what Bruno Latour refers to as the actor-network theory or what Foucault called dispositif: a network of relations that come into play and define a particular situation. It reveals power structures (you would not have access to this information if we did not optimize this page to show up in internet / google search results), relations between individuals and content (you bringing your work in relation to the subject of “network science”), as well as potential gaps and links that can be made between them.

To summarize: dynamic network construction of the relations that are in play at a given situation and their constant reconfiguration is the key to expanding awareness and becoming more conscious of the relations that are at stake.

It is important to particularly note the basis for building relations that are utilized in the network, because this basis defines the communities that are created and affects power relations that are present within. 

If you want to transform the power relations, as we have shown above, there are at least two ways to do it:
1) by relinking the nodes while keeping the basis;
2) by introducing a different basis for the relations between the nodes;

The first approach accepts the rules of the game and acts within them.

The second approach changes the rules of the game and lets the new constellations emerge within the new context.

You can also combine both approaches to modulate structural dynamics of networks that you are involved in. 

In the next unit we will introduce a practical strategy for contextual reconfiguration based on the concepts that we presented above.

In the previous unit we introduced some basic concepts from network science: nodes, edges and communities. We have shown that the structure of network representation depends on the basis that’s used for representing the connectivity.

This is a crucial point, because as soon as you change the basis, the representation changes, and so does your view of the situation – leading to a different set of potential actions that you can take within.

We call the practice of changing the basis for connectivity “contextual reconfiguration” and there are two ways to do it:
1) keeping the basis intact, staying within the same context, but changing relations within;
2) changing the basis, transforming the context, letting the new relations emerge;

We will now look at these two approaches in more detail using the example from the previous unit.

Intra-contextual reconfiguration keeps the same basis (context), but attempts to relink the relations within. We will use the example from the previous unit to demonstrate how it can be done:

This given situation is “you” having a certain interest in “your work”, wanting to expand your practice, searching for something on “google” and “internet”, finding “this text” written by “dmitry” for “noduslabs.com” on the subject of “network science”.

Now that we have an overview of this situation, let’s see how we can act inside. 

Acting means making pathways along this network, following the already existing routes, creating the new ones.

Try to make a new link in the network above imagining how “your work” itself could benefit from the concepts used in “network science” and the other way round. For example, if you are interested in learning, you could represent your knowledge as a network of nodes and edges. This additional perspective on what you already know could probably give you some new ideas on your field of interest and open up new possibilities for further experiment. Then maybe there is something in your field of knowledge that could be interesting to the field of “network science”, which could expand its operative range as well.

In the previous unit we demonstrated specific strategies to act within the existing context in order to change its configuration.

In this unit we introduce how you can transform the basis for connectivity in the network itself, so that the context is changed, creating conditions for new possibilities to emerge.

If we want the new possibilities to arise, we need to transform the context. To transform the context, we need to change the basis for connectivity it is based on.

Let’s try how it works using our “old” example. Just to remind, it is a network representing the relations that come into play in this particular situation: “you” are reading “this text” on “network science” on the “internet” that is hosted on “noduslabs” website and written by “dmitry”. Also, “you” are interested in this whole thing because “your work” can somehow benefit from “network science”. 

This is a very dense connectivity. The main basis for linking here is semantic proximity (you are related to “your” work, google is linked to the internet, you use google to search for stuff, this text is about network science, etc.)

We have shown in the previous unit how you can act within this contextual basis to transform its inner structure. This is one aspect of polysingular reconfiguration – representing ideas as graphs and playing with your own position inside, following the existing connections, making the new ones. 

For instance, using the example above, we could find a new perspective in a given context by removing the link between “your work” and “network science” and instead trying to see what happens when we relate “google” and “network science”. A quick research would yield some info about the special algorithms based on network analysis utilized by Google to serve search results and this, in turn, can be like an invitation into a new territory.

However, what about changing the context itself?

Let’s try to think how we could build a new connectivity, which is based on completely different principles, using the new elements. This will give us a new perspective on things.

In order to do that, we can start with the same elements (all of them or only some) and re-think the connectivity basis. 

In the example above we can first remove all the connections and reshuffle the nodes. The newly appearing empty spaces will give us a lot of ideas:

As we are changing the basis for connectivity, the new elements may also come in and some existing elements may disappear.

In the previous example the linking substance was the semantic proximity between the elements “you” and “your work”, “google” and “internet” etc. The new basis for connectivity could be the type of the node we’re dealing with, splitting the graph into two subgraphs: people and concepts –

This is already a very different point of view on the situation and can invite some new ideas on linking those two subgraphs in completely new ways. For instance, we could think of some intermediary items, which could connect those two clusters (people and concepts). It could be, for example, a scientific research that is studying interactions of people on the internet and google from the point of view of network science. A quick search on Google Scholar yields this very interesting research paper on massive-scale emotional contagion on Facebook. To quote the abstract:

“In an experiment with people who use Facebook, we test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in-person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks. This work also suggests that, in contrast to prevailing assumptions, in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion, and that the observation of others’ positive experiences constitutes a positive experience for people.”
 

Which does not only give us some new interesting facts on social behavior in networks but also informs us about the fact that many Facebook users are subject to daily experiments that study their behavioral patterns on behalf of the corporations and institutions that fund the research (see affiliations in footnotes next to the authors’ names in the research paper: Facebook and Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education):

This simple example demonstrates how we can use meta-contextual reconfiguration (changing the context) to get some new information, ideas, and novel points of view on familiar situations.

The practice is based on 
1) reshuffling the elements
2) finding the gaps 
3) asking questions (how can this be connected to that)
4) establishing new connectivities (groups)
5) finding new connections by filling the gaps between those connectivities

So far we have demonstrated how cognitive reconfiguration can produce multiple points of views. This is the basic approach of polysingularity:

1) Describing a situation in terms of network connectivities
2) Finding new connections (contextual shifting)
3) Changing the basis for connectivity (meta-contextual shifting)
4) Asking questions to fill in the gaps

So far the practice has been that of pure curiosity. We did not have any particular objective, it was more based on phantasy and freestyle roaming through various concepts and ideas.

In this unit we will demonstrate how this approach can be further extended through the notions of narrative and intention

Network representations reveal multiple possibilities. They are useful cognitive tools to stimulate imagination, enhance perception, and trigger connective thinking.

Seeing a situation from multiple points of view and having several choices has many benefits and increases adaptive capacities of an individual. The next step is to convert possibilities into opportunities – to inscribe imaginary into the real – and here we come to the notion of narrative, which is very closely related to the notion of time.

The origin of the word “narrative” is related to the Latin “gnarus” – “knowing”.  Most of the time it implies some sort of connectivity, but of a very specific kind, that has a beginning and an end (introducing the notions of time and intention into a general multiplicity). Therefore, in order to implement networked connectivity into something that can inscribed into “real” (i.e. “time”), we need to choose a pathway that we can follow through the network that we established in order to realize the stories that can be told through it.

In order to exemplify this process, let’s look at the network that we established in the previous unit:

In order to make it comprehensible, we could produce several narratives that reiterate the different options presented in the graph. For example,

“You” are interested in how “Your Work” can benefit from the notion of “Network Science”, therefore “You” can make an “Internet” search on “Google” on this subject and find “NodusLabs.Com” website, where  a user named “Dmitry” wrote “this text” that you are reading right now.

Alternatively,  

“Dmitry” posted on “NodusLabs.Com” “This Text” about “Network Science”, which can be found on the “Internet” through “Google” and that can be interesting for “You” and inform “Your Work”.

As we can see, the two narratives present different points of view on the situation and depending on how the story is being told the connectivity above activates in one way or another.

We have shown above that several narratives can be inferred from the same networked connectivity. While they are somewhat related, the sequence of the events (the elements of a story) play an important role in the formation of meaning and making sense. We refer to this phenomenon as polysingularity. In mathematics this notion refers to a special class of integral equations that have several solutions, just like there are several interpretations of the networked connectivity we presented above.

We have already established several multiple points of views and different stories that can be told from the network perspective. However, the practice of Polysingular extrasensory perception does not end there. It is also important to be able to make a choice in favor of every particular narrative at every given moment of time. In other words, we’re talking about something that is related to the notions of “belief” and “conviction”. How to operate within a phase space where multiple possibilities are available, but only one is actualized at every moment of time.

Such approach keeps the intention strong but also makes it possible to switch the course of events quickly in case there is an obstacle or a problem. Keeping the focus on the particular course chosen while also having an overview of parallel and intersecting streams that can be activated at any moment of time.