Contrast, boundary, and the Dao De Jing
The oldest inspiration to the framework is the contrast-style logic displayed in the
Dao De Jing.
The work began deeply inspired by a structuralist reading of its relationships, and by the way meaning can be fixed by distinction, boundary, and contrast.
A lot of years ago now, this was the beginning origin of the question for me.
Two passages sit very close to that origin:
“All things under heaven are born of being. Being is born of non-being.”
(Dao De Jing, Chapter 40 ·
source)
“Thirty spokes share one hub. It is the empty space in the centre that makes the wheel useful. Shape clay into a vessel; it is the emptiness inside that makes it useful.”
(Dao De Jing, Chapter 11 ·
source)
Much of this logic and these early concepts of drawing things, and things gaining meaning by being drawn, and by being in contrast to one another, stayed as a fundamental point of inspiration.
It is the act of drawing meaning from contrast: absence as a condition that forces structure to negotiate equality and inequality, and to hold a distinction without self-certification.
In this way, the framework is not allowed to help itself to identity.
Process philosophy and individuation
From that, the framework and its reasoning can be put within the same structural lineage of process philosophy, such as
Alfred Whitehead,
and the language of individuation and transduction used by
Gilbert Simondon.
In particular, the work inherits the term individuation directly from Simondon, as a description of a state that requires relation to resolve identity in individuals.
Identity is not treated as a starting label. It is treated as something that must settle through relation.
Truth as coherence
The work then, in its dealings and approach to truth, can be thought of as relying most importantly on a
coherence theory of truth,
rather than corresponding to any predetermined essence.
The framework moves into a relational determinism, in the way structure negotiates equality and inequality, and in the way compatibility has to hold across relations under audit.
Gödel and incompleteness as a structural condition
Another major influence is
Kurt Gödel,
in particular his incompleteness theorems.
The framework takes this influence seriously, not only as a limit, but as a structural lesson.
Nothing can begin by fully self-settling. Completely self-settled structures have no negotiation away from equivalence into inequivalence, and therefore no route to resolving distinct identity.
Incompleteness, in this view, is not a defect to be patched over. It is a mode of relational drive.
It is how a structure is forced into relation rather than permitted to close on itself.
Physics and local resolution
Inspirations also came directly into physics. The first real bridging idea, where mathematics became calculus, includes
relativity
and its attention to observer frames and local resolutions, where identity can settle without needing to adhere to a single global notion of time.
Where to begin
To begin in the written work: Volume I is the formal logic declaration and philosophical entry point.
Volume II is the geometric register and the strict technical construction. Either route is welcome.
If you are unsure, start with Volume I, then jump to Volume II when you want the full technical register.