musing

themanual.ioBAset-of-common core circumstancesrelative differencesBAgeneral caseA special caseB special caseAaBbset-of-all circumstancescore circumstances(contextually relevant) a very brief ‘playful’ 1 sketch of negotiation between party $a$ and $b$, in terms of: alignment the improbable yet elementary case note: commonly negotiation is an imperfect game; what i point to initially, is an extensible ideal negotiation implies discontinuity/ non-equality/ non-equivalence between the circumstances/concerns of two or more parties (here i focus on two) 2 negotiation is scoped/ contextual between parties $a, b$ focus on a contextually relevant subset of each parties’ set-of-all circumstances $A \subset a$ $B \subset b$ negotiation implies $A \neq B$ consider the intersect between $A, B$ as the general-case between respective concerns: $A \cap B = \mathcal{Gc}$ and difference to $\mathcal{Gc}$ as respective special-case $A \setminus \mathcal{Gc} = {A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$ $B \setminus \mathcal{Gc} = {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$ note: there is no need to negotiate continuous, equal, sufficiently equivalent maps (no beneficial mutation required/ possible) where $A = B \;|\; A \approx B$ ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}} = \varnothing, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}} = \varnothing \;|\; {A}^{\mathcal{Sc}} \approx \varnothing, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}} \approx \varnothing$ as each party will emphasise respective $\mathcal{Sc}$, the ideal is to: eliminate ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$, by moving elements to: $\mathcal{Gc}$ by translation, into common terms $a, b$ by de-emphasis, to outside of the scope/ context of negotiation there are two ways to achieve this de-emphasising elemental significance redefining contextual boundary rule: all special-case concerns ought to be framed (or re-contextualised) by the general-case (typically by recasting individual or familial homeostatic/ allostatic concerns in terms of groups common to both parties: both/all individuals, both/all families) so step one is to relate ${A}^{\mathcal{Sc}}, {B}^{\mathcal{Sc}}$ to $\mathcal{Gc}$ (such that remaining $\mathcal{Sc}$ are explicitly discontinuous/ unequal/ non-equivalent) 3 note: to explore intuitions further, we will translate 4 from set-theoretic concerns to graph, and geometry, as necessary consider elements as a graph of composition translation (re-framing or re-contextualisation) to $\mathcal{Gc}$, in-effect, extends (or re-originates) each graph to a common origin consider, where the general-special relation over time resembles a tree, we might think of special-case concerns as loose branches, which must be aligned with appropriate trunk ($\mathcal{Gc}$) i think that for this ideal model (for common IRL negotiations), that it is impossible to fairly isolate some elements of otherwise extrinsic scopes of concern $(a, b)$ from negotiation $(A, B)$:...