Communicative Relativity as Physical Justice

Justin J. Petrillo
NSSR
M.A. Thesis

i. Theory (M)
0. Towards a General Theory of Communicative Relativity
1. Tele-Communicative Relativity
2. Ethical Sciences
3. Justice
ii. Practice (M)
0. Models (*M)
1. Mimely (dM)
2. Mimetic.Systems ( M )

Justice has always come too late. A future of morality cannot address a past of trauma. A
system that works to make amends by definite goods has not touched the underlying issue of
what is forever lost in what can never be. To order time by linearity is always to have lost the
constitution of the world in a historic past, and yet progress demands such unrelenting
directionality. Upon the lamentations of fairness, justice can only give better rules to the games
in the next round, and perhaps update those players who have been left behind in the receding
unfairness. As long as players are in a prison of time, a tit-for-tat is the dominant strategy for
equilibrium between rational actors who cannot appreciate each other with mutual dignity, as

they are caught in the linear process of instrumentalization. Between each other in
communication is the openness from from which space and time first find their measurements,
the root of all information.
Relativity as a physical ethics states that an observer observes and condemn violence, but
as a physics it opens time and space to those who measure it. Who keeps the clocks that close
the past? What locks us in a horizon of emancipation that leaves those dwellers in the present
the living anxiously awaiting what is to come? Forward leaning beings, as moderns, we have
lost contact with the constitution of the world in its soil, hummus. The ownership of space
continues to generate inequality with the only available paths for success the training of new
technical skills, mostly blocked by the demands of specialized education. Is there no present
perfect tense? Whether God is Dead or Alive is the hermeneutic question of the circle: traversing
its boundary how does one know if the path is indeed a circle, a line segment, or point? Such
topological answers depend on the measurement device. The Spirit of Gravity who proposes this
question to Zarathustra is a Dwarf, in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, space-time, the
differential of Gravity,

g=G .

The political sciences are the sciences of ends, articulated by Aristotle in his Politics as
coming from the community of the highest authority over the good, the polity. From a
physicalist perspective of general relativity it is thus to polities we must look for the constants of
measuring space-time itself. Without secluding communication as a within-social activity, but
one that occurs objectively with and between nature, it is the locus of all information and thus
from where all measures of space and time originate. The question of equality in the politics of
rule formation and the economy of physical material delineation is in whose communication

priority of measurement is taken, which democratically must find itself in a horizon of equal
communication between all persons in a nation or within the globe.
The lack of communication between the natural and social sciences has inhibited both of
their progressions. The political theories of sovereignty as the common unity across space and
time of distinct persons answers the empirical quantum problem of measurable entanglement
and the relativistic problem of the constants required for self-measurement. The physical
theories of material and biology answer for economics the question of scarcity and for politics
the question of equal representation. This paper proposes an integrative theory of
communicative relativity to advance the current states of physics as quantum relativity and
political science as post-sovereign, laying the groundwork for a new discipline, Mimetics |
Mimetrics.

i.0. Towards a General Theory of Communicative Relativity

Einsteins General Theory of Relativity will be advanced through Communication and
thus modified to be applicable to explanations in political economy as a theory of physicalist
ethics with a practical application of mimely. Persons are unique space-time manifoldings and
societies their tensorial summation. Law and Economy are the constants of political economy
determining the states and systems of gravitys effect on space-times socially communicated
invariances and dynamics.
The amorality of inequality worldwide in the attainment and reclamation of political
economic goods, for more than survival but towards prosperity, is an incorrect theory of physics
which has engendered political economic structures perpetuating injustices and individually

corrupt personalities, since nature itself in its human and non-human forms has been
misconceived, an original ethical violation.
The sink of the world system in the highest murder rates, corruption, and poverty of
Honduras, spread worldwide in the critical transitions of development and terrorism, avoiding
the annihilating divisions of immanent war, cannot be averted by treaties of aid distribution and
increased security, nor held abey by threatening nuclear weapon accumulation.
Rather, new technology of representation for the functioning of political economy worldwide mimetic information machines represent people before each other as nature to people,
co-generating inner social-regulatory forms with external natural-environmental materials. This
theory & its applications makes no distinction between the physical goods and the governments
that regulate them, but freely generates physical material as the ideal for their necessity emerge,
with the physical performing a social computation and mutuality of thought producing physical
alterations. This mimetical physics does not partition the human world from the natural world
but explains the physicality of thought as the pre-image of causality with mythology as the
cyclical feedback. The laws regulating human nations are identical to the laws regulating nature,
with the inter-relations between social meanings and behaviors not seperable from the interrelations between forces, but mutually dependent in differentiability. The plurality of forms of
human life is the inner manifolding tendencies of space-time itself so much as it exists in
singular surface unity God.
Poverty is not caused by a lack of technology, but by a lack of ethics, with
modernization a nodal point in the explicit separation of sciences from ethics with the
hampering of both as the resultant. Equality in political economy is an uncompromising
identity between the social and the natural with ownership of property partially differentiable,

not exclusively binary as the human law must reflect the natural law each progressing with one
another. The physical assumption that 1 good may only be consumed by 1 person, as in the
private property engendering scarcity in capitalism, is equivalent to the assumption that a
position in space may be occupied only by 1 object at a time, neglecting the partiality of
boundaries which need not separate time entirely from space, but interweave them in complex
goods and persons that cannot be entirely separated nor identified at single moments in time
isolated from others. The non-identity logic of mimetics is the logic of derivatives x .
Without bringing the advances of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity as a
tensorial logic of low-differentiable space-time measures into political economy through the high
differentiability of social-communication, engendering a complete physical-meta theory, the
nature of the the human condition will be left undiscovered in its partial differential unity with
time and space determined by an observer infinitely afar. In the construction of physical surfaces
and their derivatives we find the role of human meaning within nature. To refuse further
differentiation in physical measures is to refuse the meaning that may emerge from the nihilistic
abyss between particles.
The destruction of Life in Disease, Unhealth, and Violence can be understood as a single
moment in the deprivation of meaning through unethical activity that closes boundaries in the
demarcation of the physical, killing biological formulations, while oppositely the ethical process
opens boundaries in their partial differentiations to multifarious cooperative growth relating
separate biological forms in mutuality. A systems approach to the biological political economy
necessitates a lifeworld phenomenological approach in order to understand its derivatives in
boundary making/unmaking, coupling together as a mimetical science of ethics (Habermas,
Vol.2).

Digital technology is the closest mass technology of information for the deployment of
mimetical representation systems on a world scale. The excess of meaning in cognitions
interpreting the stored bit is mimetically on the 1st level the derivative of its physically
correlative substance. It is purely non-physical as non-surface, yet the derivative of the surface
of electro-magnetic representational correlation, and thus actually physical but non-private,
surpassing any intellectual form of physical property currently unregulated and theoretically
unregulatable by a surface law. It cannot be bounded on the surface of space-time, as is essential
for capital, yet strictly effects the surface capital of which the information is about. 1st
derivatives, meaning itself, as represented by information, are pure speculative assets. In order
to own such an asset, it must be bounded for strict privation and brought to the surface, thus
losing its meaningful quality as a derivative of, that is the information about, and becoming the
surface datum itself. On the surface 1-d mimetical objects appear as without boundary for any
boundary drawn to separate them from other objects these boundaries may themselves be cut ad
infimum thus boundable as strictly unbounded. They have been thought of not-appearing as
black-holes, yet within the event-horizon is where they are least. They are rather the action of
the derivative itself on the surface meaning.
To speak of meaning within a bounded (i.e. scarce) physical world is to speak not of an
opioid of the masse, but of the infinite spring from which the physical and its biological
complexity emerge, and thus to speak of the non-scarce - the plenty. Here lies the answer to
poverty & inequality a transformation of the witnessing of the space-time manifold inhabited
by the human from within communication, and thus a wider range of dimensions from where life
as the openness of space-time curvature emerges.

Through the elaboration of this communicative physics, we will find strange new forms
of biology within the cosmos, ways in which language and thought mediate the biology and
physical spontaneously, and a deeper connection between scales of physical observation and
human activity. This physical language of non-scarcity in mutuality with nature we have called
mimetics | mimetrics in anticipation of its duality between an expressive function by humans
in theory & practice and a reception function in physical embeddedness.

i.1. Tele-Communicative Relativity

Through Habermas critique of functionalist reasoning in cybernetic system models of
communication in society we find that meaning is not intentional, as in stored in an isolated
subject, except in potentiation of violence, but in the lifeworld is intersubjective through the
mutuality of communicative action (TCA, Vol. 2). In Shannons 1948 A Mathematical theory
of Communication, a message from one end of a channel is sent and out of the possible sets of
messages, the correctly intended message is to be decrypted, with the information measured by
the logarithm of the inverse probability actualities over possibilities. Thus, information
measures the non-consensus between the sender and receiver. If the meaning is not transmitted
from one side of the tele-communicative channel to the other for reception, but rather is the
mutuality of an informational diode then it is not reducible to a consensus agreement-ascorrespondence between informational monoids its measurement is rather the improbability of
separability in the message to a sender and receiver.
This paradigm shift in telecommunications beginning with the message (and on the
macro scale, laws and prices) as entirely relativistic, and thus that which is already held in

common1 means that the message cannot be expressed entirely on a transmitting device from
which it will be received at a destination. It cannot be distorted by the channel of
telecommunications. Rather, it is the channel of telecommunication between persons.
When two people communicate over tele-communication channels, there is an intersubjective spacetime-dilation as they speak meaning complexes opening a field of original
measurement - observed subjectively as an increase of time & space by the freedom of
concentrating in what is said and thus valid objectively for any social (participatory) observer.
The communication originates a high-d position between persons in their 4-d space-time
coordinates from which an invariance may measure the derivational relations of their
coordinates. The spacetime of meaning is not located primarily here or there as a Euclidean
Geometry but considered its higher dimensional derivatives with the conception of NonEuclidean Geometry. When meaning is produced, originating in appearance, the fixation on the
non-Euclidean representational levels ripples down to large changes in the Euclidean geometry
arrangement, as a motivating conversation between individuals will cause them to change their
environments drastically. The quantity of events that may occur within an engaged
conversation is not bounded by the time the conversation takes place in nor the space of
participants. Thus, independent of socially objective measures of space and time in terms of
1 For the political economic sciences, as in jurisprudence, the notion of
common truths between persons is not new, as in common law, yet the
hitherto impossibility of scientifically measuring such cultural norms beyond
deferring to an individual authority or aggregating the responses of
individuals has impeded the experimental measuring of common norms
across space and time starting from a mutualistic, rather than individualistic,
particularization of communication, and thus prevented the creation of
proper political tele-communicative technology measure. The unity of the
common truths of a geist or general will with the precise measurement of
physical phenomena is in the linguistic enumeration of political phenomena
within quantum-relativistic computers, of which the mimetic.system is
considered a first prototype.

ownership, 2 persons may create an spacetime for themselves through mere communication
without a bound on its measures. If a measure of an entire macro politys space-time is made
from within a single communicative act then this inverted measure would find the
conversation to be the global eternity and the rest of communication through space and time
to be subsidiary finite intervals.
The power of the general theory of communicative relativity is in orienting new measures
of political economy from any well-defined act of communication, capable of constituting the
entirety of a political-economic measure of Earth from a single act of communication, as a limit
case. We may provisionally consider such a constitution to be a mimetic constitution which
need not have a paper form, but any physical remainder, however temporary the bundled
physical form of origination. Should soundwaves, although dissipated through the environment,
and perhaps not even digitally recorded, be neglected in their political constitutional action?
The relativity of political economy from the map of political-communicative action onto
the 2-d surface of Earth begins by locating action within communication, as a non-Euclidean
spacetime region, rather than as stuck on the Earths surface. From here, the boundaries of
constructing polities need not be exclusive or even strictly derivational, but overlapping as
partially differentiable. From the locus of non-Euclidean origins any n-dimensional Euclidean
geometry may be constructed from which to measure out the political-economic actions of
humans. Digital life is a commonly held new 2-d political measure with maps to a spacetime
cyberspace approximately 1 dimension for space and 1 for time and then conclusive relations
to the normal 4d national state world.

It thus appears that the political is a measure of time while the economic one of space,
both as measurements of the information within communication.

From the diode of 2 persons tele-communicative relativity, we may extrapolate into the
system of tele-communication constructing a single or multiple inter-related polities towards a
relativistic empiricism of the space-time generated communicatively by the tele-communicative
technology scaffolds and idealistically the creation of new political-technology infrastructure
incorporating the insights of communicative relativity physics (i.e. mimetic.systems).

If it may be said that 10 highly coordinated individuals may create a revolution to defeat
an entire nation it is because the power of communication is to generate space-time itself, which
includes the eternity of a constitution and the openness of property relations as more than an
epiphenomena over-laid upon an otherwise static Earth.
From a physicalist perspective of General Relativity interpreted through communication,
communication is the functional co-derivative between two points in space-time, as a
measurement of how they change together in relation to other variables, which are the topics of
communication and the topology of the space-time relation. The original measures of physical
space and time, and secondarily their political economy, comes from communication, not an
objectivity, and thus it is politics that first negotiates the life span or life space of a person.
The subjective experience of space & time, which is especially askew for those excluded from a
polity as the schizophrenics (Straus n.d.), is constructed politically as are the objective relations
of space and time. The measurements of time and space between humans is equally dependent
on political economy as the measurements of time and space between a group of humans and

their natural environment. The ultimate question of scarcity rests upon how the political
economic body has measured the physical such that it is either fundamentally equal or unequal
between humans. While a Newtonian Capitalism states that one object is consumed by one
entity, partially differentiable boundaries allow resources to be shared by entities that are not
entirely separability in making the assumption of separability for solving partial differential
equations we generate an engineering science destructive to life on Earth.
The non-distinction between physical entities we define as communication. While we
may say within a political economic discourse that the political conversation in the public sphere
creates the definitions of private property and the rules of distribution, which is then solidified
into legislation by administrative system communication, communication need not be confined
to human-human communication, but participates in the construction of the natural physical in its
boundary definitions. Thus, the two points made by communicative relativity in physics and
political economy is that 1) equal communication in a society will generate rules for equally
distributing the available natural resources and 2) equal communication between society and
nature will generate rules for defining nature equally between persons.
While it may seem that only within-political resources, as rights, may be freed from
scarcity and even these are made to seem dependent on a separate & finite natural
environment legislation as by administrators and physicists constructs the physical exterior as
its relates to the internal sociality. Perhaps the controversial thesis of this theory is that materials
needed for survival, as in food, are generated not by physical technology alone but through
the change in bio-physical material through meaning, as labor, here farming. What appears to
be invisible communication alone without the high-tech visible instruments may alter the
manner in which biological life physically grows. While the modernist physicist may consider

higher calibration of machines for genetic modification to be the manner of communicating with
the plants, the validity of primitive cultures in their mystical rituals of basic communication
with nature to increase crop-yield should not be ignored as immediately non-scientific. The
difficulty in reproducing and measuring the

noncommunicability
lifeworld system
public - political
How can we rethink representational government through mimely as a just digital
system?

i.2. The Ethical Sciences

We consider the nature of a model in the political sciences and its relationship to the
natural sciences through the bridging principle of entopic informationality. The ethical question
is the boundary formation of testing in the experiment, seen as essential to all science in their
natural investigation. Justice is the measurement enabled by this boundary formation as the
ethical line between right and wrong. Mimely is considered as a digital justice measurement
device of human natural phenomena.
i.2.1 Ethical Experimental Models in Politics
Model making in the political sciences can more than study participants, but involve
participants in micro-political environments through information systems, in which rules are set
through algorithms to run autonomously but can be augmented by the input of participants. We

have thus the mechanisms for controlled political experiments where the actual subject of study
is bounded and completely defined through the executable code.
The ethical concerns of an experiment involving participants, considering they are not neutral but
affected by the experiment, is that the codes constructing the experiment must themselves be
ethical - if they are not then the involved persons would be harmed. For a political experiment
there are thus two criteria of i) ethical initial conditions and ii) the capacity to alter the initial
conditions towards those more favorable to the particular participants. Yet, in its political
criteria, we consider there to some good for the participants which is at stake in the experiment,
thus preventing the participants from themselves being completely neutral.
i.2.2 Phenomenology of Political Information Systems
In an information system the rules of the game are outlined in the algorithm of the
coded environment, and the inputs from users are arguments in functions which will run
according to the user data. This ideal-practical form of law-as-rule is autonomous given input
argumentation and will run in set ways identically unless its language premises are broken, as
performed methodologically in hacking or error detection. The form of the function is
invariant while the content in argument data is variable to the user participants. We may easily
compare this to the universality of a law in politics given a particular domain of applicability. In
the layers of language rule formation within and beneath the law there are holes that are
corruptible as errors in the system when it is executed by persons in civil service.
When Kuhn describes the linguistic practice of science in The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions through the play of rules for identity, from Wittgensteins Philosophic
Investigations, as problem-solving, he indicates a character of the revolutions inherent in the
practice of metaphysically determined systems of thought (Kuhn 1962). This process can be

understood in the analytic-synthetic relationship as the first antinomy of pure reason whereby
ruled systems are constructed by conditioning premises that ultimately depend upon
unconditionals if the conditioned is given, then the whole sum of conditions, and hence the
absolutely unconditioned, is also given (Kant, 461). The revolutions produced by cognizing
from below is Heideggers existential-ontological approach to deconstructive thinking beyond
the false entrapments of Being in metaphysical premises (Heidegger, 41). The autonomy of
physical computing is no exception textual-numeric symbolic languages encoded in natural
phenomena are interpretively embedded within historical activities of society, whose premisesas-practices are always under-developed and thus susceptible to reinterpretation-as-revolution
outputting errors from within the information system, unleveling the ground of computability
for new rule construction.
In so much as persons can receive goods from an experiment, they can also be harmed, as
the hypothesis testing demands both directions of possible change in order to statistically
eliminate the bias of the particular experimented persons. The ethical criteria of the initial
conditions of the system must be a justice conceptual realization that reflects justice as such.
Between practice and theory, informatics is a mimetical relationship. The systems themselves
are never complete within themselves, and thus open to both an exterior interpretive layer of
changing meaning on the formal invariants encoded, and an interior interpretive nexus of
under-thinking premises from which errors may always emerge. The process of laying down
conceptual principles in the political sciences is the generation of a formal informatic system,
although often encoded in text alone to be processes by the affirming cognitions, not necessarily
an externally produced technical machines, although there is no difference between this schema
between the social and physical computation of ideals through a bio-social process of

interpretive determination via informatic communication. This duality of information bridges

the theoretical-practical divide because it must point to but exceed a concrete instantiation to
which it has information about yet this information is only contained within a larger system of
meta-data. Political science thus situates itself between the already determined societalconsensual ends of politics and the means of value-realization, as the facts of the political
domain are determined by measurement and as-measured, instantiated within the social-political
domain, generating feedbacks of value-accumulation with value-instantiation as the scientific
process of informatic recursion.
To gain information about the social world is also to generate social facts that have a
gravitational effect on the social environment. The political experiment as the ethical
component of all social scientific experiments cannot be so locally contained as to exclude its
effect within and upon the social environment and larger political context. Similarly, the political
aspect of natural scientific experimentation includes the value-orientations the human
experimenters work for in the directional goals to which the results-as-facts will serve valuewise. The context of science is never fully able to bracket the purpose it serves nor the context
of meaning it draws from, necessarily retaining as remainder a mimetical relationship to its
context. A political institution must test its laws for validity in objectivity with the social choice
an affirmative confirmation indicative of the asymptotic objectivity the axiom of choice what
anyone would choose as on one level of choice equivalent to the lower level conditions
allowing for anyone to choose. The consensus involved in the scientific natural sciences is
not without reflexive identity to the political testing of public opinion as the empirical consensus.
The natural phenomena constitutive of the social in any domain of inquiry is the political
topology as that which is talked about, to which the social sciences consider a hermeneutic

object and the natural sciences a physical object, yet its mimetical attribution between them
cannot be denied.
In the theory of relativity, the physical is defined as a tensor of space & time, that is both
measurable and measuring between this 3 x 1 real vector. The invariants that allow for a smooth
measure are the gravitational and light constants, and yet their constancy is post-hoc determined
by the invariance of interpretable technical apparati of scientific theory within the context of
physical investigation. The counterpart in the social-political domain of this constancy is the
statehood of the universe and thus the empirical measurability of state-as-such on the surface, as
the single world state conditioning every nation state.
The phenomena are the gateway between the real physicality based upon ultimate
invariances and the imaginary sociality freed by possibility in variation through historical
fluxuations. They are what appears which always is as in retains an existence with duration
although that which is behind it to give the appearance may not be identitical itself to that
which appears, and yet it is always not in that the appearance itself is not what it itself is, only
the seeming to be in its initial confrontation with an observer, beckoning the inquiry to
reconcile between the appearance itself and that which appears. From this schema of
phenomenological investigation there is a definitive linearization of depth between the utmost
seeming surface and the deeper Being of that which appears itself. The phenomena itself is the
only invariance in this measurable/measuring investigation, with neither the surface from which
measures can be made nor the depth to be measured fully determinable. While the appearance in
itself is strictly not and that which appear strictly is, between these the existence of the
phenomena is mimetical a determinable indeterminacy. If the observer constructs a measure
applicable to the phenomena then it will be quasi-independent of the phenomena and thus unable

to capture that which is pure phenomenological as only within appearance, while if the measure
is constructed from the phenomena it will be indeterminate as the phenomena is not invariant
itself, but purely the variance itself, which deduces to the invariance in the variance.
i.2.3 Measurement in The Ethical Sciences
The problem of measurement can be approached from both ends of the invariance of an
object and the observer. The experiment sets up the bracketing to define the invariability of
object and observer. Its physicality is the constraint from-within, while the interpretation is the
freedom from-without. If humans are experimented upon then their meaningful interpretive
context must itself be constrained, while if non-human natural phenomena are experimented
upon, their existence is pre-interpreted in the scientific framework. With either natural or social
objects, interpretation is both constrained and free. The observer too has a constrained yet free
interpretive environment setting up and testing the hypothesis within the experiment. The
experimentation in the social-political and visa versa is symmetrically the iterative testing
process of boundaries between constraint-determination and freedom of indeterminacy.
Summatively, the constraint of the political is the scientific while the freedom in science is the
political. The ethical is within and without both together.
Boundary formation is a topological arrangement of possibility sets into designations,
which as partitionable become seperable, distinct, and thus real. When boundaries are drawn
the separability of categories enables distinct numeration, and thus measurability constituting a
physicality. In experimentation nature sets itself by inclusion/exclusion for physicality on the
inside and ethicality on the outside, with the boundary itself occupying the physical ethical,
which as the measurement itself, is justice. The information in a bounded region is its
partitionability, as the non-reducibility of the physical substratum compared to its ethical

suprastratum. The micro-structures over the whole macro-structure in a partitioned region

forming an experiment give its entropy, which is also the unpredictability of the physical form
given the ethical state. In high entropic state systems in-justice reigns as an interminability
between conditions and outcomes, as a highly contested political region is often plagued by an
unjustifiable war. Justice demands strict measurability as a correspondence between the ethical
and the physical, the determination of natures boundary setting.
i.2.4. The Physicality of Meaning
The problem of the ethical within the natural is not to be answered through evolutionary
conceptions of biology as emerging after some development of complexity, but through the
boundaries it draws of itself, to which the human may participate in pre-imaging through
cognition, as the imaginary abstraction of a boundary. Meaning is the residue of ethical action as
the process of boundary-making, which from the observer perspective is the differential
partitioning of the ethical-physical boundary. The differential of justice, as that which constitutes
its internal changes, is meaning, measuring out the stable signification of the physical. High
entropic systems have always lost their meaning, at least in specificity, with an indeterminate
differentiability, an inseperability of regions common to notions of the sacred as found in
primitive cultures with high coincidences of disorderly violence (cf. Honduras).
i.2.5 Information Theory
i.2.6 The Ethical in Hegel
0.1.2.1 Phenomenology of Spirit

0.1.2.1 Philosophy of Right

0.7 Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interests

0.8 Ricoeur, From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II

1. Justice
The freedom from the constraints of nature is the motivating political force behind the
investigation of natural phenomena since the determination of the constraints in symbolic
abstraction also determines the error in the particular physicality from the general theory from
which new configurations as new constraints can be set up.

1.1 Rawls, A Theory of Justice

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. (3)
The primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the
major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages
from social cooperation
The presuppositions to The Theory of Justice:
A. Agreement on a conception of Justice
B. Distribution
C. Right & Duties

The scheme of social cooperation

Stable

(Rawls 1971)

1.2 Sen, The Idea of Justice

1.3 Habermas, A Theory of Communicative Action

1.4 Einsteins A General Theory of Relativity

hypothesizing some formalization of meaning

then testing the context with humans
data in computer as determinate is approximate, approaching the real value
convergence

1.3 Informational Justice

1.3.1 Digitality

2. Mimely: A Just Digital System

Mimely is a textual-numerical symbolic information system. The mimetric of a text
values the existence of meaning through the text. Yet, meaning is always relational, and thus

future, mimetic.system

0. Investigation of Communication
We set out to investigate communication in its mathematical ideal throughout the history
of human thought. All theories of nature are thought in society. All theories of thought are
thought of society as the thinking whole constituted out of thinking parts. The nature of
communication is not contained to society as nature may perhaps communicate with itself, yet
communication is thought from society and of society - the thinking thing that communicates
with itself. Unlike thought alone, communication is also empirical, and thus when thought
communicates it makes itself known empirically if not in other ways.
0.1 Communication in Social-Scientific Thought
In the contemporary industrialization of human labor, communication holds a privileged
place as that which must be controlled for efficient coordination to be established. In this history
of thought, Plato conceived of thinking as a dialogue of the self with itself, and thus from this
pseudo-communication knowledge of the forms of the forms as the good, the true, and the
beautiful could be obtained. Yet, abstracted and commodified, the dialogue has today become a
semi-autonomous product embedded in the machine labor of the self as it must communicate
with itself in order to produce. One communicates not with a self, but with a complexity of
apparati in technical instruction in order to coordinate the elements of personal action to fulfill
pre-set goal-orientations. The silence of a listening dialogue within the purity of thinking has
all but disappeared to electrical stimuli communicating information through the stressed sight
of the minds eye as one must communicate with ever more things to know these days.
The recursivity of communication is perhaps its widest divergence from the history of
the thought of thought in dialogue.
As a corporation attempts to move the most amount of packages from one storage
facility to the next in the fewest days in order to receive the highest payment per the cost

paid to its employees so there can be the most profit to be paid as dividends to its
shareholders or re-invested into research development of more efficient package-transit
and more load-bearing trucks and drivers, communication too follows the sink-or-swim
economically rational logic of business in carrying the most information between buyerssellers in the least time and with the least resources so that the payments made to the
communication-employees can return the highest profits so the communication load can
be scientifically optimized and enlarged to carry ever more information to its targets with
the least in-take so proportionally the communication tarrying of information is ensured
to profit as ever-enlarging without a definite end
Such is an open recursive function of profit, not particular to only information but to all forms of
successful production, although one may say that capital always requires this informatic
communication. To be recursive is to repeat oneself given an initial definition, yet to profit is to
grow with exceeding remainders, and thus recursive profit must not merely repeat itself, but
exceed itself, while to lose its to destroy its in repeated loss. Where do the remainders of gain
come from in repetition?
Surveying the scales of its existence, communication is not merely at the workplace,
where one must relay accomplishments to others so the necessary information does more than
circulate its own mass but accumulates in content as production extends itself through the human
vessels of communicative labor. It is said to be the primary action of the organic matter of the
body, where cells must communicate in order to not only distribute protein resources where
needed, but to obtain new resources from the environment to replicate in expanded energy
production as life, which always means exceeding its stasis. When the body slows down from
accelerated productive replication it begins to die. For Nietzsche, this is the mechanism of the
will to power: it must will itself to more power lest it turn inwards in self-denial.
Mathematically, this function is its own derivative, that is its value is also the rate of its own
change, which is the exponential function e x . The body must profit from its own informatic

communication as it comes to understand itself better, that is to coordinate its operations with
greater efficiency (outputs/inputs). Between neurons neurotransmitters send needed information
throughout the brain, to the body parts, and back to the brain for central communicative
processing. Communication must innovate, that is repeat the same process in order to make new
matter out of the given initial criteria. In cell production, there is said to be a division of
mitosis, but each cell out of the division must grow as large and healthy as the original cell, thus
producing 2 where there was 1. The repetitive exposition of matter takes in surrounding fuel
and transforms it into the needed form of energy so that the division of 1 cell into 2 half cells
grow into 2 whole cells, transfiguring division into multiplication. Yet, the goals of
communication are outside of itself in the world it inhabits, to which it already comprehends
from within itself. The growing system ordains its pool of resources and orientation for excess to
shape itself into that which it is to become, as Aristotle termed telos. Problematically, given an
entity that communicates with itself to generate two larger entities in duplicative promotion from
an environment of unformed resources, the signals for communication seem to be located within
the entity itself, as if within DNA is its own excess, that overflows through the ambiguity of its
surroundings. The borders of communication are permeable membranes that reach out of
themselves and thus were never distinctive separations but mere localities of dynamic growth.
This ambiguous determination is called complexity the information contained in
bounded matter is the abstract remainder that exceeds itself through appropriating the real for its
own inwardly manifested imaginary bounty. The beyond of DNA as the entirety of the human
body to grow out of an egg-sperm or embryo, and the society it will create, are already within its
formatively miniscule complexly abstract order, although the synchronicity of this acausal
connectivity is only probabilistic (Jung 1960).

While the literature on communication theory in analytic philosophy, i.e. Searle, has
focused on human acts of speech, a scholastic perspective reveals it to be a historical structure of
thought and thus embedded within both the scientific process of investigation and relations
between objects of inquiry. While the dialogue within thought leaves the real realm of the
forms to ascend to the purity of the form of forms, communication is stuck in the middle of this
transcendence.
Psychology, Nietzsche, When a person is said to be unable to communicate the
psychological diagnosis diagnosis is the problem with the mind of the individual, as Foucault
traces the miscommunication of reason with unreason in Madness & Civilization to the birth of
insanity and psychiatry to administrate its silenced imprisonment, rather than an under
simplicity to what is said, which subjects its participants to coordination under its systemic rule
formation as in Wittgensteins Philosophic Investigations.

i. Empirical-Theoretical Model
We begin thus with explicating an empirical model of communication as it expounds
itself in society. A self is first constituted by thinking by itself. This self then becomes a person
through communicating with another person through mutual recognition of self-hood. Through
a Hegelian dialectic, the commune-i-cation is a positive coming into original unity that negates
itself to constitute two different but whole individuals. These persons communicate with many
other persons in the network of groups through 1-1 communication and 1-many communication,
where each person serves as a fixed node from which to define the interconnection of all persons
in the network who have communicated to each other at least indirectly. These local networks of

communication are known as publics because all persons are present to each other through the
representation of at least one indirect surrogate. A single person defines a local public by
representing all the persons he or she has spoken to directly (1-1 or 1-many) thus engendering
communicativity between persons who have not directly communicated with each other. These
publics, as networks, overlap and may be added to each other to form larger publics in rings of
group.
In Jrgen Habermas The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, the publicsphere (Offentlichkeit) is historically and etymologically rooted in the appearance of the sacred
through a monarch who re-presents the people to themselves in singularity. Through the secular
bourgeoisie transformation of the public-sphere in the French revolution representation is
preserved through enacted communication as the stage of mutual recognition, which Habermas
identifies as the use of transcendental reason in argumentation to positively negate one another,
which when enacted through a network group is rational-critical debate. Seen as the only
weapon available to bourgeoisie commercial-merchant class excluded from legislation to critique
the authority of an administrative state whose laws were decided by the aristocracy, the use of
critical rationality, as Locke had identified was available to all persons from their private
relationship to God, was the act of freedom. Yet, the Marxist analysis provided by Habermas,
identifies the privacy premising the use of critical reason to require property gained by
commerce and guaranteed by the administrated property law.
For Kant, the public was a space of the free use of critical reason where universal
theoretical knowledge could inform the particular practical decisions of legislation. Still, the
position of anyone in the public was based upon their private social-economic status which was
not free but conditioned upon master-slave relationships of work, and thus for Kant the solution

to a free public sphere rested upon the equal opportunity to own ones labor as a craft-merchant
who only worked for himself and thus could freely engage in commerce through equality. For
Marx, the solution to the public spheres freedom rested upon the political society where all
persons were involved in the decision making of the state as much as their own commerce, thus
making the central privacy of legislation equivalent to the peripheral privacy of commerce
through the abolishment of private property into common property as communism.
From this theoretical-historical analysis of the rational-critical communication between
nodes of the public in society, the connections are premised upon the systemic whole of society
as its politics, which exchanges private property in commerce, regulated by its legislative state.
A later work of Habermas, A Theory of Communicative Action (TCA), investigates the
argumentative nature of rational-criticism through intersubjective communicative action and its
relationship to the entirety of the social system, which is considered from Parsons to have
economic and legal subsystems.
The state is the whole of the network of communication as a system, which functionally
accomplishes its goals through the subjective nodes and their intersubjective connections. The
state is privacy in generality, while commerce is the exchange of privacy as property in
particularity. The argumentation of rational criticism enacted through communicative
connections is not free, as in independent, from the constraints of the system, but is enabled as to
its privacy from the system. From the rational critical perspective, two nodes directly or
indirectly (via representation) state propositional claims and either affirm or negate each others
claims through which they arrive at intersubjectively valid claims, disproved claims, and those
that diverge between participants in the communicative act. From the systemic perspective, two
nodes have a privacy guaranteed by the right of property from the state by which they may

exchange property of equal value as governed by the commercial law. In so much as the state
guarantees the democratic right to self-governance as participation in legislation, considered a
rational-critical deliberative process, their argumentation partakes in a network-wide
communicative ring over the intersubjective field of claims that form the legislation as the base
premises to the entirety of the system.
Privacy, as the nodality of a node, is the existence of a claim that is only subjectively held
to be valid. The exchange of equal privacy in commerce is an argumentation that measures the
intersubjective (over a selected cross-field) value-validity of private claims, equating those
privacies that are of equivalent value-validity. A corporation is a privacy formed out of the sum
of many nodes of the network, and in corporate personhood considered to have subjective
properties itself as pertain to the privacy of its claims, which demarcates a boundary of
irrefutability by the argumentatively functionalized network given by the right to privacy thus
constituting the nodality. The state is the privacy of an entire network of communication. While
society designates the boundary of the network, as which nodes are included or excluded, the
state is the boundary-making of the privacy of each node and the regulation between nodes.
Through representation the communicative bridges (direct or indirect) between nodes
partake in the entirety of the network as system. Representation is not merely the connection
between indirect nodes, but the re-presentation of each node from their communicative relation,
as both a local rational-critical argumentation and a global steering mechanism of the system.
In the analytical speech act theory, universal pragmatics, formulated by Habermas,
communication consists in articulating presuppositions held by a subjective agent ego, to be
either affirmed or refuted by the alter, establishing consensual social validations and dissensions,

as the previously private claims composing the agents are compared via argumentation to
establish overlaps and divergences.
From the phenomenological perspective of the lifeworld, each claim articulates a
phenomenon which may or may not be shared across the communicative bridge with the
participant, with common phenomena designating a shared lifeworld. Through this propositional
account of language, a proposition only announces a phenomenon, in that something appears, in
the phenomenological method of Heidegger (Being & Time) inherited from Husserl. Yet, that
which appears, as a phenomenon, may not appear as itself, but as another phenomenon, that is
the phenomena may hide themselves through each other, as an illness such as a cold may only
show itself through sneezing which is not the cold as such. Yet, in the not-showing the
phenomenon shows itself more clearly as a phenomenon that shows itself by hiding itself. The
reason for the validity of a proposition is thus 1 degree of the itself of a phenomenon, in that a
justification for a claim states what the claim actually is, which was only designated by the
proposition of the claim. Through argumentation the phenomena are shown to be what they are
as validating justifications reveal deeper layers of the itself of what appears, while negating
refutations reveal the ways in which the claim-phenomenon is not itself, thus also showing more
clearly what it actually is. This negotiation of terms in argumentation as mutual
phenomenological investigation represents the truth and untruth of each agent as a validity
mechanism that localizes what is as it is.
The entirety of the system is a statement of what is, at least within its bounded nature.
The summation of each node in their differentiating communicative acts distinguishes what is
from what is not, identifying both what is in the ways it isnt and what isnt in the ways it is, thus
through the intermixing of positivity and negativity as dialectics identifying what appears and

how it appears as the bounded universe. The functional ends of the system through the network
are what are taken-for-granted, as neither shown the light of affirmation nor negated in
disappearance. Taking our network as time-independent, ends are locally situated by the
communicative rings to which they are valid throughout the argumentative processing of each
nodal validation mechanism within a bounded region locally valid claims. The ends that are
globally valid either in most or the entire network are meta-ends and as such are the premises of
the entirety of the network-as-system across its spatiality. Ends, as summatively valid claims,
such as a claim to privacy, function as the 1st order validity sub-functions in the argumentative
function that determines local and global validity.
Allowing for time variation means there will be disequilibria in the system of divergences
between the validity of claims and the local-global ends. Knowledge of the ends already
operating within communication may not be known to the local communicative participants as
not all premises can be uncovered through argumentative differentiation a premise only comes
to light in argumentation through disagreement. As local validations are reached within the local
rational-critical argumentation process they may propagate spatially in outward validation as
goals until they reach the whole network and become ends, thus reaching local-global
equilibrium. When all participants have examined a claim, its end - as the root of its validity comes to light throughout the entirety of the arguing network. From the time-independent
perspective the dynamic temporal movement towards equilibria is the convergence of claimvalidities, goals, with the ends that already structured their original argumentative validations.
The freedom of communication in the public is constrained by the politics as the ends
that operate systemically to determine validity. Without concepts of validity already established
no truth in public reason would be able to reach its antithetical political establishment as factual

law (Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit), and yet due to temporality the law may not be its own
ends, to which reason is required for criticism.
2. Model Criticism
This gap in knowledge of claim-premises, overcome through the efficient arguing
network of society, generates disjunctions between the public and the state as prominent in
revolutionary times. The state at any one time may not be the universal state of validation it
claims to be, but only local bunch of nodes, authorities, claiming to speak for the entirety of the
network. This is the source of force in legislation, when validation techniques are imposed upon
the larger body of speaking individuals. In these instances, as is often common, it is essential for
the public to speak up and argue with legislative facts in order to make known the true premises
to their society. While the claims of a public are at first not legislation because they have not put
to test the entirety of the debating society, through continued argumentation the public sphere as
a whole does reach systemic validity and is thus capable of legislating when it comes to be
identitical to the political. Such equivalences between the lifeworld and system represent
equilibria in a society when the law actually represents the conversation of everyone involved
and is thus the intersubjective validity premises of the entirety of communication in a society.
Ultimately, the argumentation model of communication in society put forth distorts the
lived experience of society as it has completely rationalized communication from an objective
observer with complete knowledge of validation. Practically speaking, no one has such complete
knowledge of truth and falsity (validation). While a political society may try to survey the public
or even involve them in administrative debate, as Obama attempted with the Information
Department that would involve persons in deliberative decision-making of the government, it

cannot reach everyone, nor can it continue the argumentation process indefinitely, but must cut
off conversation however short-sighted the conversation has been and use the validities
determined to enact legislation. Such practical considerations of a government bring up
concerns over the necessity of such restrictive legislation as it serves to cut out the public from
its fact-making, and thus compels the public while it is still arguing. In any sensible empirical
model of communication social movements reveal that legislation is always in dynamic flux as it
sets premises of fact that are later overturned by the speaking public whose power in groups and
volume of echoing voices, as well as its sheer rationality of continuous conversation, is the
greater of validation mechanisms than the minority of representatives. Thus, the main question
for the ideal model given, is why do representatives function at all in the government for the
public? Why must validations be made as law to speak for the entirety of the people when they
are so often not representative? Why must validation be represented, rather than merely acted
out in practice? We ask thus empirically and theoretically why a center to communication arises
and why it is perpetuated.
Habermas, in TCA, gives the answer to the requirement of law and money to
functionalize speech as complexity. He says that without a functionally reduced form of speech
that eliminates argumentation, then goals of the system would not be met and persons would not
be delivered the material needs required for survival. Violence too may persist without a definite
end if not administrative decision is given to over-rule to clamoring public. Essentially,
Habermas reasoning for closing the public undervalues speech. Although he claims to promote
communicative action, he weighs heavily on the instances where communication entirely breaks
down, which legitimate the system, similar to Hobbes argument for the leviathan Sovereign to

dispel the state of natural violence. Given the model presented of ideal communication we can
consider whether the system is actually necessary and whether it enhances or hurts the public.
There are thus two claims for the system to be evaluated: i) without a foreclosure of
communication over goals, material goals for survival would never be established and survival
needs would not be met, & ii) without a system that cuts off communication miscommunications
would break out into violence.
In reference to claim i, the problem with goals established but cutting off the public is
that the goals actualized do not meet the entirety of the society yet claim to and draw human
labor resources to actualize them. If instead only goals reached through consensual deliberation
were actualized, then the entirely of societys resources as centralized in the state would not be
leveraged towards those goals, yet they would be equal to their representation. The contradiction
in representation we are isolating is that while only 75% of a society agrees to a particular goal,
100% of the societys resources are devoted to the goal. In this sense, central representation is
always mis-representation. If individuals only pursued those they locally validated, then only
those resources would be devoted to the goal as proportional to the validity locally reached. In
thus diffuse system put forth, individuals act upon local validity structures only in so much as
the human laborer communicative agree to them, and only in so much as they hold up as valid.
When a goal is invalidated through its propagated enactment through society, as would inevitably
happen to all goals, it ceases to be systemically validated, and thus no longer pursued. such a
society acknowledged divergences within the population and actually lives up to those
differences as a testament to the impossibility of complete objectivity. In the centralized state
model from the modern construction of politics, a representative sample of society takes over
the entirety of society as an objective end and can thus engagement in harmful activities as

eminent domain where the goals from another population conceived as more representative
take over the resources of a minority irrelevant of the goals invalidity in the local situation.
While a bureaucrat may conceive of this diffuse system as chaotic, it is rather complete and
perfect representation. It is the antithesis of centrally planned goals that overtake reason.
A diffuse system bridges the local with the global only in so much as such validation
holds true, forcing resources to be chosen particular to the circumstances and in the particular
ways in which they are necessary. Thus, the survival needs are measured particular to the
individuals interest they claim to speak for and only the goals for the validated survival needs
are pursued. Such a system acknowledges a plurality of needs and even ideas of the good life,
rather than claiming them for entire peoples or even entire regions. We can consider claim i to
be invalidated and to have rather transformed the system as a centrally planned one into the
system as mere a factual description of moving validity structures, rather than a reified one
above communicative argumentation.
This leads us to the question of whether the system medium as identified by Parsons and
inherited into Habermas work, as money and law, could also not be diffusely conceived and
even empirically acted out as such. Laws would not be valid over all of society or even over
regions, but only in so much as they are considered valid. Such a concept of law as more than
flexible but changing as argumentation proceeds could even be recorded informatically, yet
importantly would not reach itself over persons in violence by force, either by the police,
judiciaries, or legislators. The enactment of law would first require law-enforcement agents to
validate with local participants if such a law-as-claim was valid to them. Similarly, the use of
money would also be based on persons validation of value and would not retain a price across an

entire country prices of commodities could not be sold to all consumers equally, but only on
the individual consumers arguable validation of the price.
In order to answer claim ii, we must consider its reasoning

The freedom of communication in the public is constrained by the politics as the ends
that operate systemically to determine validity. Without concepts of validity already established
no truth in public reason would be able to reach its antithetical political establishment

3. Autonomous Informatic Model

ii. Derivative Model (Mimely)

Propo

Let us suppose there is a model of communication in society that is

also a mode of communication in society - a theory transmuted into a
practicionable device. The material form of the theory in its social medium
must be of a higher abstraction than that which it claims to explain, yet
significantly, it interacts with that which it studies, with subsequent
exponential recursive/feedback effects on the measured objects. In the
onto-genesis of this mimetical theo-technology, it already exists before it is
constructed, although it has not been articulated to such a degree of
explicitness. In so much as the model is originally comprehensive of existing
communication in society, then its modulation as a concrete possibility of
communication in society is a reduction of the whole of communication as it
exists into a single form of communication, bridging the ontological and the
ontic, as the 1st premise with its derivative, further questioning both poles of
the ontological-ontic through iterative reconstruction.
Let us first map an empirical model of the levels of communication
from which we will consider the model as a mode to be reconstructed. From
this useable map the onto-genesis of this technological form of holistic
communication can be considered in its ontic existence to interrogate the
ontological Being, with their iterative relationship to be the mimeticity.
We consider communication as it evolves in scale from 1 persons
thinking by himself to a whole society of people communicating with each
other. As more people are involved the complexity of the communication
changes the nature of the communication itself. Habermas explains this

process as the growth of the system for functionalizing communication in

order to handle the explosion of possibilities of interpretation and
misinterpretation. We consider mathematically the nature of the system in
communication.
In his Theory of Communicative action he explains the relationship
between a rational approach to language via argumentation and the
lifeworld-system dichotomy. The lifeworld is the open process of
argumentation in which premises are always challenged or affirmed in a
continuous horizon as the rationalization process, while system is the closure
of argumentation when propositions cannot be affirmed/refuted any longer
but must be accepted/denied without further deliberation such that action is
necessarily carried out along such decisive programs.

While action in the

lifeworld is characterized as communicative action (speech) for its open

process of communicative reconsideration with disagreement and agreement
in overlapping and differing circles of consensus, action in the system is
characterized by functionalist action (behavior) for its necessary execution
along previously intended rules, as with law and money. His diagnosis of the
times is that modernity is the split in communication between lifeworld and
system, with posterior as their decoupling. Questions concerning their
nature thus also advance their critical project of recoupling. The concern in
this work is for violence produced by the system colonizes the lifeworld
Through Vol.1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society he traces the
growth of reason as the engagement of critical rationality, where premises

are challenged, revealing their backing premises or falsified. Such a

pragmatic view of communication as argumentation over propositions entails
that a proposition is true in so much as it has a premise backing it up,
affirming its truth. Participants in conversation are space-time localities of
propositional articulation, with each participant having its truths as
propositional backings yet also falsities in biases of unquestioned or nonbacked premises.
For any proposition
P1

proposition as premise

P0 , it is true in so much as there exists another

that backs up

P0 . This means that

T (P 0)P1 , where T is the truth function, returning 1 for true and 0 for false.
We have not evaluated the truth of
proposition-as-premise

P1

for that will require an additional

P2 , but as long as there exists

P1

then

T ( P0 ) =1. If we allow T to be a probability of truth from 0 to 1, then we may

just use P, but acknowledge it has a textual component
component

represented as

PT and a numerical

where the output of a probability of truth from 0 to 1 is

P[0,1]

while the output in words of the proposition is

From this symbolization, we may say that

P{text } .

[0,1]
, in that the probability
P[0,1]
0 P1

of truth (truthiness) of proposition 0 will be dependent upon the truthiness of

proposition 1. In fact, given a space-time bounded communicative action, C,
the truth of a proposition will be dependent upon the truth of all other
propositions able to back up or criticize P in the communicative action. If
P1

is the only other premise-proposition relating to

P0 then

[0,1]
.
P[0,1]
0 =P1

At least locally between only

may say that

P0P1 , in the truth of

P0 backed by P1 , we

[0,1]
[0,1 ]
.
( P0|P1 ) =P 1

Model Levels
0: Thinking
We will make some attempts at a possible mathematical formulation of
self-communication and then explain the configurations in order to clarify the
complication encountered in this problem. When one person communicates
with oneself, there are actually 2 people, although these two people are the
same person. Perhaps we can say one of these people is real and one is
imaginary, as is common in mathematics to use complex variables. In this
instance, the complex variable of self-communication would be written as z
= 1 + i. Yet, these two people, one imaginary and one real, are not
completely distinct. They are held together by the unity of the variable z, as
1 person with 2 parts, 1 real and 1 imaginary.
This operation of having 1 complex person being decomposed into 2
parts in order to converse, seems to be a useful lead for considering the
difficulty of describing the numerical relations of conversation. The difficulty
is in describing these relations are that for n people, there can be at most n-1
conversations, while for m conversations there must be at a minimum m+1
people communication. 1 person by itself cannot speak to itself because
conversation implies a difference between speakers that is lost in so much as
the speaker and listener are the same.
1: Interpersonality

When I am thinking I am communicating with myself in reality, yet I am

also communicating with people of the past in my imagination as continuing
these previous dialogues, and may be projecting conversations into the
future as possible dialogues I may have with others. In thinking, there is a
real communicative base of 1, as the self thinks by itself, yet there is any
number n of imaginary partners in communication, hence the complex
number representing this system level of communication is z = 1 + ni.
It is perhaps unsatisfying to consider the conversations of the past to
be imaginary as they have formed the person who converses by itself, that is
to say they have formed the 1 that is the real component of the
conversation. In imaginary reflections, the real basis of the individual is
changed, or at least re-arranged in its relation to the past and certainly in the
paths of possibilities towards the future. The continuation of dialogue with
future possibilities is also not completely imaginary, as the possibilities may
become real. Thus, between the unitary single unit of Thinking within the
levels of communication, and the real constitutive past and future with which
it imaginarily dialogues, there is a mimetical function

that transfers

information between the real unit of communication in its imaginary

communicative possibilities. The node of the communicating unit
in thinking is modified as to its boundary conditions,

mimetications of imaginary possibilities

C}
C

C R

C R

=1

, by the

into infinitesimal differences

upon the real unit of 1, entailing the roots to its past and projections onto the
future. Thus, if we consider the past of conversations with m people to be
real in the present of a person thinking and the future of n possible people to
be imaginary, then we can say that

C R

= 1 of the present thinking

communication can be decomposed into m real persons of the past and n

imaginary persons of the future, as

C=m+ , meaning the boundary

conditions of the singularity of the unity of communication are determined by

the real past and imaginary future.
While we have leaned to the past being real and future imaginary, we
have been ambiguous as to the meaning of imaginary participants in a
conversation of the present. It is not clear why even the present should be
biased towards the reals as possibility is just as much part of the present as
the future. Thus, perhaps we can say that there is just as much 1 real person
thinking as there is 1 imaginary person communicating in thinking. Here we
introduce the mimetical operator as neither real nor imaginary to clarify what
we really mean by thinking. In thinking there isnt anyone,

C M =0 , at least

mimetically, although its real component may be 1, which may itself be

decomposed partially to m people, and its imaginary component may have
any numbers.
When two people communicate they may speak privately as directly to
each other, yet their context has been determined in the present by any
number of past conversations they continue and they project of any number
of future possibilities with other persons. Although

C R

= 2, its boundary

conditions too may have

C=m+

many more real and imaginary

constitutive parts.
health and right
biological and system

Beginning the problem of communication in society existentialontology of Heideggers hermeneutic Interpretation of the question of the
meaning of Being (Being & Time), it was not

ii. Mimetic.System

Political Economy

Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. 1977. On Revolution. Penguin Books.
. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago & London, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Dean, Jodi. 2002. Publicity's Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on

Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Translated by
Thomas McCarthy. 2 vols. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Harvard University Department of Social Relations. 1951. Toward a General
Theory of Action. Edited by Talcott Parsons. Harvard University Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. 1967. The Phenomenology of Mind. Translated by J.B. Baillie.
London, NY: Macmillan Company.
Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being & Time. Translated by John Macquarrier and
Edward Robinson. Harber & Row.
July, October 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication . Vol. 27.
Kant, Emmanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer &
Allen W. Wood. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of
Chicago Press.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Straus, Erwin W. n.d. "Psychotic Disorders of Space and Time." Edited by
Marcin Moskalewicz. unpublished (Erwin. W. Straus Archive, Simon
Silverman Phenomenology Center).