rhachet-roles-ehmpathy 1.15.13 → 1.15.14

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog101.concept.treestruct.persp.1.perspectives.md

@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
-# 🧭 .brief: concept.treestruct.perspectives
-
-## .what
-The **concept.treestruct.perspectives** brief defines the **three major ways** of understanding and navigating the concept rootball:
-
-1. **universal perspective** — describes the objective structure of concept space
-2. **relative perspective** — models the thinker’s navigation from a focal anchor
-3. **fractal perspective** — reveals the self-similar, intersective, and recursive nature of meaning
-
-Each perspective emphasizes a different axis of reasoning, but all operate within the same **RootStruct** — the infinite radial space rooted at `"concept"`.
-
----
-
-## .why
-
-This framing allows us to:
-
-- switch between **absolute location**, **subjective movement**, and **compositional complexity**
-- unify reasoning strategies under one structural system
-- explain paradoxes of abstraction, categorization, and analogy
-- design flexible semantic systems that honor both structure and interpretation
-
----
-
-## .perspectives
-
-### 🌐 universal perspective
-> The concept rootball as a **fixed semantic structure**
-
-- concepts are **absolute positions** in radial space
-- movement uses **spherical traversal**:
-  - `radial`: abstraction (in), specialization (out)
-  - `lateral`: sibling concepts at same depth
-  - `angular`: axis/domain/frame changes
-- rooted at `"concept"` — all paths converge there
-
-📌 no zoom — only position and displacement
-📌 useful for structural modeling, hierarchy resolution, and axis alignment
-
----
-
-### 🧭 relative perspective
-> The concept rootball as **experienced from a focal anchor**
-
-- movement defined by **zoom metaphors**:
-  - `<zoomin>`: dive into attributes / internal structure
-  - `<zoomout>`: broaden through context / external relations
-- traversal mechanisms:
-  - `via(attributes)`
-  - `via(neighbors)`
-- abstraction and specification can happen in either direction
-- zoom direction is contextual — not absolute
-
-📌 useful for thought modeling, analogy, and semantic exploration
-📌 the “user interface” for navigating the universal structure
-
----
-
-### 🧬 fractal perspective
-> The concept rootball as a **recursive tangle of intersecting TreeStructs**
-
-- concepts belong to **many overlapping hierarchies**
-- each dimension (taxonomy, function, color, culture, etc.) forms a **partial tree**
-- concepts are **shared nodes** — crosspoints between branches
-- supports nested reasoning, lens composition, and local-rooted trees
-
-📌 useful for modeling polycategorical meaning, domain lenses, and recursive re-framing
-📌 generalizes the lens and domain models into a single recursive substrate
-
----
-
-## .summary
-
-| perspective | structure       | motion language     | focus             | root concept |
-|-------------|------------------|----------------------|--------------------|--------------|
-| universal   | absolute radial mesh | radial / lateral / angular | global semantics  | `"concept"` |
-| relative    | zoom-centric view    | `<zoomin>` / `<zoomout>`     | local navigation  | user-defined |
-| fractal     | recursive mesh       | recursive TreeStructs        | intersective roles | multiple |
-
----
-
-## .notes
-
-- all three perspectives are **valid**, and **mutually compatible**
-- each reveals a different **facet of meaning**
-- together, they support a complete model of **conceptual structure**, **thinking motion**, and **domain intersection**
-
-> Concept space is not flat — it has **structure**, **anchor**, and **recursion**.

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog101.concept.treestruct.persp.2.universal.md

@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
-# 🌐 .brief: concept.treestruct.universal
-
-## .what
-The **universal perspective** views concept space as a single, infinite **RootStruct** — the **concept rootball** — where all concepts are nodes radiating outward from a single absolute core: `"concept"`.
-
-This frame treats concepts as having **absolute positions** in a shared structure. Motion is described using **spherical traversal**, not relative zoom.
-
----
-
-## .why
-This perspective provides:
-
-- an objective map of the semantic universe
-- a consistent reference for abstraction, specialization, and analogy
-- a substrate for intersecting TreeStructs to safely coexist
-- a gravitational pull toward core ideas like `"concept"`, `"thing"`, or `"entity"`
-
----
-
-## .structure
-
-The concept rootball is modeled as an **infinite spherical structure**:
-
-- **radial axis** = abstraction level
-  - inward = more abstract
-  - outward = more specific
-- **lateral plane** = peers at the same level of abstraction
-- **angular displacement** = movement across semantic axes or domains
-
-Each concept node is positioned by:
-- `focal.depth` → how far it is from the core
-- `focal.breadth` → how wide its local context is (peer connections)
-- `focal.acuity` → how precisely it is resolved at that layer
-
----
-
-## .traversal
-
-All movement is defined by spherical geometry:
-
-- **radial**: toward the core (abstraction) or away from it (specialization)
-- **lateral**: across sibling nodes at the same depth (e.g., `"dog"` ↔ `"cat"`)
-- **angular**: between different axes or domains (e.g., `"knife"` ↔ `"word"`)
-
-> When angular displacements are small, **lateral ≈ angular**.
-> When crossing domains or axes, **angular motion becomes distinct**, often involving metaphor or re-framing.
-
----
-
-## .examples
-
-- `"dog"` → `"mammal"` → `"animal"` → `"organism"` → `"concept"`
-  → radial inward (abstraction)
-
-- `"dog"` → `"herding dog"` → `"border collie"` → `"tri-colored border collie"`
-  → radial outward (specialization)
-
-- `"dog"` ↔ `"cat"` ↔ `"rabbit"`
-  → lateral traversal
-
-- `"dog"` ↔ `"companion"` ↔ `"servant"` ↔ `"vehicle"`
-  → angular traversal across roles and metaphors
-
----
-
-## .core
-
-The root of the universal TreeStruct is the concept: `"concept"`.
-
-All conceptual paths — regardless of starting point or traversal method — ultimately collapse inward toward this root via abstraction.
-
-> The rootball is not a hierarchy — it's a multi-branching **semantic continuum**, with a gravitational center of meaning.
-
----
-
-## .notes
-
-- This perspective is **agnostic to the thinker** — it describes the structure itself, not how it is navigated
-- It enables semantic alignment across domains via shared radial reference
-- All relative and lens-based perspectives operate **within** this structure
-
-> This is not how we think — it is **where** we think.

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog101.concept.treestruct.persp.3.relative.md

@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# 🧭 .brief: concept.treestruct.relative
-
-## .what
-The **relative perspective** is a way of navigating the concept rootball from the standpoint of a **focal anchor** — a specific concept that frames all motion.
-
-From this position, traversal is interpreted through **zoom metaphors** (`<zoomin>`, `<zoomout>`) and proceeds via either:
-- **attributes** (internal features and structure)
-- **neighbors** (external context and related concepts)
-
-This model captures the experience of **thinking through** a concept — expanding, refining, abstracting, or reframing it locally.
-
----
-
-## .why
-This perspective allows:
-
-- flexible conceptual movement without needing global coordinates
-- support for local reasoning, reframing, and analogy
-- expressive control over **zoom**, **detail**, and **contextual scope**
-- modeling thought as **exploration**, not just location
-
----
-
-## .mechanisms
-
-Traversal in the relative perspective combines two dimensions:
-
-### 🔀 mechanism of motion:
-- `via(attributes)` → inward-facing — explores internal structure
-- `via(neighbors)` → outward-facing — explores external associations
-
-### 🎛 zoom direction:
-- `<zoomin>` → dive deeper into a concept's composition
-- `<zoomout>` → step back into its surrounding context
-
-📌 These are metaphors: zoom direction is not absolute — it’s **anchored to the focal concept**.
-
----
-
-## .example traversal: `"banana"`
-
-Each semantic operation below is illustrative — not exhaustive:
-
-### 🧠 abstraction
-
-- `<zoomin><abstract>.via(attributes)`
-  `"banana"` → `"fruit"` → `"plant organ"` → `"organic structure"`
-
-- `<zoomout><abstract>.via(neighbors)`
-  `"banana"` → `"apple"` ↔ `"mango"` → `"snack"` → `"food"` → `"thing"`
-
----
-
-### 🎯 specification
-
-- `<zoomin><specify>.via(attributes)`
-  `"banana"` → `"ripe banana"` → `"peeled banana"` → `"sliced banana"`
-
-- `<zoomout><specify>.via(neighbors)`
-  `"banana"` → `"banana phone"` ↔ `"banana peel"` ↔ `"banana stand"`
-
----
-
-### 🌐 broadening
-
-- `<zoomin><broaden>.via(attributes)`
-  `"banana"` → `"contains potassium"` ↔ `"is soft"` ↔ `"is curved"`
-
-- `<zoomout><broaden>.via(neighbors)`
-  `"banana"` → `"pineapple"` ↔ `"pear"` ↔ `"papaya"` ↔ `"guava"`
-
----
-
-## .relativity of zoom direction
-
-> **Zoom direction is always relative to the focal anchor.**
-
-Examples:
-- `"molecule"` is **outward** from `"atom"`, but **inward** from `"protein"`
-- `"snack"` is **outward** from `"banana"`, but **inward** from `"lunch"`
-
-There is no contradiction — only a **change in frame**.
-What defines direction is **semantic proximity to the chosen center**, not absolute position.
-
----
-
-## .relation to universal structure
-
-- the relative perspective **operates within** the universal rootball
-- but it interprets motion through **subjective zoom**, not spherical coordinates
-- zoom-based motion may be radial, lateral, or angular in universal terms — but those distinctions are not necessary locally
-
-> All relative paths, no matter how they begin, will eventually **converge inward** toward the universal root: `"concept"`.
-
----
-
-## .notes
-
-- relative perspective is ideal for:
-  - everyday thinking
-  - analogical reasoning
-  - exploration of unfamiliar domains
-- the focal anchor acts like a **semantic lens** — shaping how the local region of the rootball is viewed and explored
-
-> Thinking is not positionless.
-> It always starts **somewhere**.

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog101.concept.treestruct.persp.4.fractal.md

@@ -1,83 +0,0 @@
-# 🧬 .brief: concept.treestruct.fractal
-
-## .what
-The **fractal perspective** views concept space as a dense network of **intersecting TreeStructs**.
-Each concept is not just a node on one path — it is the **intersection of many partial trees**, forming a highly recursive and self-similar system.
-
-> Concepts belong to **multiple overlapping hierarchies**, each rooted in different domains or dimensions.
-> The overall shape is fractal: the closer you look, the more structure you find.
-
----
-
-## .why
-
-This perspective captures the **true complexity** of meaning:
-
-- reveals how concepts play **multiple roles simultaneously**
-- explains why concepts can feel different in different frames
-- enables **multidimensional navigation** and **lens-switching**
-- models concept space as **recursive**, **composable**, and **self-similar**
-
----
-
-## .structure
-
-Each TreeStruct represents a **semantic dimension** or **domain lens**, such as:
-
-- taxonomy
-- color
-- smell
-- function
-- cultural role
-- physical structure
-- symbolic metaphor
-
-A concept may appear in **dozens of TreeStructs**, each with its own parents, children, and siblings.
-These TreeStructs **intersect at shared nodes**, creating a **mesh** rather than a single tree.
-
-> The universal rootball is not one hierarchy — it's a **fractal tangle of hierarchies**, all rooted in `"concept"`.
-
----
-
-## .examples
-
-Consider `"banana"`:
-
-It appears as a node in many overlapping TreeStructs:
-
-- `fruits` → `"banana"` ↔ `"apple"` ↔ `"mango"`
-- `colors` → `"yellow things"` → `"banana"` ↔ `"lemon"` ↔ `"school bus"`
-- `smells` → `"fruity smells"` → `"banana"` ↔ `"strawberry"` ↔ `"grape"`
-- `shapes` → `"curved objects"` → `"banana"` ↔ `"boomerang"` ↔ `"crescent moon"`
-- `products` → `"groceries"` → `"banana"` ↔ `"milk"` ↔ `"bread"`
-- `props` → `"comedic tools"` → `"banana"` ↔ `"pie"` ↔ `"rubber chicken"`
-
-Each of these is a valid TreeStruct rooted in a different abstraction path — and `"banana"` inherits structure from all of them.
-
----
-
-## .fractal behavior
-
-- Each TreeStruct has its own **depth** and **breadth** profile
-- Any node in a TreeStruct can serve as the **root** of a new TreeStruct
-- Shared nodes act as **portals** between trees
-- TreeStructs can recursively **embed** inside one another — e.g., `"banana"` inside `"fruit"` inside `"snack"` inside `"lunch"` inside `"routine"`
-
-> The system is **recursively nestable**, **highly intersective**, and **scale-invariant in structure**
-
----
-
-## .visual metaphor
-
-Imagine the rootball not as a tree, but as a **mycelial mesh** or **root system**, where every intersection is a node belonging to many overlapping trees.
-Each tree is a **branching pattern**, but the mesh as a whole is a **recursive fractal web**.
-
----
-
-## .notes
-
-- the fractal perspective generalizes the **lens**, **domain**, and **intersection** models
-- it supports compositional reasoning: combining multiple TreeStructs into a working structure for a task
-- abstraction is no longer a single axis — it's a **field of directional compressions**
-
-> A concept is not a leaf on one tree — it is a **crosspoint** in a recursive forest.

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog151.concept.treestruct.gravity.md

@@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
-# 🌌 .brief: concept.gravity
-
-## .what
-**Concept.gravity** describes how certain concepts exert a **semantic pull**, functioning like **gravitational centers** in the conceptual rootball.
-
-These high-gravity concepts act as **anchors for thought**, **starting points for exploration**, or **recurring nodes** that structure how we navigate, remember, and relate ideas.
-
----
-
-## .why
-
-This model explains:
-
-- why certain concepts are **easier to recall** and return to
-- why traversal often bends toward **familiar or salient ideas**
-- how **working memory** orients around **persistent anchors**
-- why some ideas feel "**central**" while others feel "**orbiting**" or **peripheral**
-
-Concept.gravity offers a cognitive and navigational metaphor for the **structure of attention and recall**.
-
----
-
-## .properties of gravity
-
-- gravity ≈ **semantic salience**
-- higher-gravity concepts:
-  - are more **memorable**, **central**, or **frequently visited**
-  - act as **attractors** during traversal
-  - may act as **default lenses** when exploring unknown space
-
-- lower-gravity concepts:
-  - require **conscious effort to locate or stabilize**
-  - may be skipped over unless actively sought
-  - often exist in the **shadow** of nearby cores
-
----
-
-## .examples
-
-- `"dog"` has high gravity in most minds — it's concrete, visual, familiar
-- `"justice"` has abstract gravity — anchoring philosophical clusters
-- `"fruit"` may act as a gravitational lens when exploring `"banana"`, `"apple"`, etc.
-- `"concept"` itself is the universal core — the **black hole** at the center of all abstraction
-
----
-
-## .gravitational traversal
-
-> Traversal in the rootball is not always linear — it bends toward **nearby gravity wells**.
-
-- when searching, thought often **snaps to the nearest core**
-- if exploring `"knife"`, we might default to `"tool"` or `"weapon"` because of gravitational pull
-- angular or exploratory moves are often **redirected or slowed** by nearby attractors
-
-This explains why:
-- **analogies drift toward known metaphors**
-- **reframing** requires effort — escaping a gravitational frame
-- **local gravity** defines what’s visible in working memory at a time
-
----
-
-## .thought as traversal
-
-> Thinking can be modeled as **traversal across gravitational fields of concepts**.
-
-- high-gravity concepts act as **navigation hubs**
-- thought often **orbits** or **spirals inward** around a central idea
-- active thought involves **hopping between cores** while holding some in working memory
-- expanding attention requires **venturing past the current pull**, sometimes using angular motion
-
----
-
-## .working memory & orbiting
-
-- concepts in **working memory** form a **local constellation**
-- one acts as a **primary anchor** — the active lens
-- others **orbit** as nearby or queued concepts
-- **loss of anchor** can cause drift or re-centering
-
----
-
-## .notes
-
-- gravity is **relative** — depends on thinker, context, and task
-- gravity can shift over time — reinforced concepts gain pull
-- systems can intentionally **bias gravity** (e.g., prompts, education, interfaces)
-
-> High-gravity concepts organize your thoughtspace.
-> Low-gravity ones wait to be discovered — or pulled in.

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog201.cortal.focus.p1.definition.md

@@ -1,231 +0,0 @@
-# 🎯 .brief: cortal.focus
-
-## .what
-**Cortal focus** is the directional beam of your cognitive attention — a **semantic lightcone** that shines outward from a chosen **conceptual core**, illuminating a structured region of concept space.
-
-It operates over a **concept.treestruct** (spherical RootStruct), using geometric parameters to determine:
-
-- **how far** you reach (`focal.depth`)
-- **how wide** you sweep (`focal.breadth`)
-- **how crisply** you resolve (`focal.acuity`)
-
-> Focus is defined **from the relative perspective**:
-> you stand at a local concept core and shine your attention outward into the conceptual terrain.
-
----
-
-## 🧩 focus = position + posture
-
-Cortal focus is composed of:
-
-- **focus.concept** = **position** → the **anchor concept**, your current location in the semantic structure
-- **focus.context** = **posture** → the **shape of your attention** — how your focus is distributed across depth, breadth, and acuity
-
----
-
-## 🌐 where is focus?
-
-The terrain is a **spherical concept.treestruct**, where:
-
-- **nodes** = concepts
-- **links** = **relationships between concepts**, defined as **questions**
-  → each link is a **semantic prompt** — a concept temporarily narrowed into a relationship
-- space = infinite, recursive, intersective
-
-From your **anchor concept**, you emit a cone of attention shaped by:
-
-- **radial** → abstraction axis (generalizations ⇄ instances)
-- **angular** → descriptive axis (flavor, tone, function)
-
-Your cone of focus slices through this terrain like a lightbeam through mist —
-defining what is **seen**, **resolved**, and **reachable**.
-
----
-
-## 🔦 lightbeam geometry
-
-Cortal focus is a **radial cone** emitted from your current concept:
-
-- `focal.depth` → radial span of semantic layers reached
-- `focal.breadth` → angular spread of included neighbor concepts
-- `focal.acuity` → resolution sharpness per concept node
-
-The shape of your focus is not a perfect ring — it’s an **irregular patch of included neighbors**, carved from the TreeStruct by your current attentional configuration.
-
----
-
-## 📏 focal dimensions
-
-### 🔬 `focal.acuity`
-
-- **what:** semantic resolution at the current concept
-- **effect:** fine-grained traits vs holistic blobs
-- **metaphor:** lens sharpness or pixel density
-- **behavior:**
-  - `.attributes++` = sharper external traits
-  - `.substructs++` = clearer internal structure
-  - `acuity--` = surface-only, low-resolution forms
-
----
-
-### 🔭 `focal.breadth`
-
-- **what:** angular span across same-depth semantic neighbors
-- **effect:** narrow vs broad comparative view
-- **metaphor:** beam width or search cone
-- **behavior:**
-  - `breadth++` = includes more neighboring concepts
-  - `breadth--` = isolates one or few nodes
-  - breadth ≠ a ring; it's a **nonuniform sweep of neighbors** in TreeStruct
-
----
-
-### 🕳️ `focal.depth`
-
-- **what:** radial thickness of abstraction/specialization layers
-- **effect:** surface detail vs multilevel integration
-- **metaphor:** light penetration into a semantic sphere
-- **behavior:**
-  - `depth.abstract++` = include more generalizations (inward)
-  - `depth.concrete++` = include more specific instances (outward)
-  - both expanding = `depth++` radial shell of abstraction
-  - `depth--` = tighter slice around your current layer
-  - depth is **relative** to anchor, not a fixed universal level
-
----
-
-## 📐 compositional tradeoffs
-
-\`\`\`
-focal.depth × focal.acuity² ∝ focal.breadth²
-\`\`\`
-
-This expresses the tradeoff between **vertical integration**, **horizontal scope**, and **local resolution**:
-
-- `depth` = radial span of abstraction/specialization
-- `breadth²` = angular sweep of peer concepts
-- `acuity²` = pixel density per concept
-
-> Holding any two constant requires tradeoff with the third.
-> You can’t max all three without overload or blur.
-
----
-
-### 🎛️ cognitive tuning patterns
-
-- `depth.abstract++` + `acuity--` → broad but imprecise vertical insight
-- `acuity++` + `breadth++` → sharp lateral comparison across peers
-- `depth--` + `acuity++` → zoomed-in detail
-- `breadth++` + `acuity--` → conceptual sweep, low precision
-- `depth++` + `breadth++` + `acuity++` → **unsustainable semantic load**
-
-→ Adjust based on whether you're scanning, designing, comparing, teaching, etc.
-
----
-
-## 🧭 relative traversal
-
-From any anchor (e.g. `"banana"`), you navigate concept space via:
-
-- `<generalize>` → "banana" → "fruit" → "organism"
-- `<contrast>` → "banana" ↔ "apple" ↔ "mango"
-- `<decompose>` → "banana" → "peeled banana" → "sliced banana"
-- `<reframe>` → "banana" ↔ "crescent shape" ↔ "moon"
-
-All traversal motions arise from **questions-as-links** —
-concepts narrowed into **semantic relationships** that enable motion.
-Each traversal is an **executable prompt**, and each destination is a **sumption** — possibly another question.
-
-> Focus behaves like a **steerable beam**, shaped by intent, strategy, and available structure.
-
----
-
-## 🧵 focus.context as fabric
-
-`focus.context` is a **composite of semantic fabrics** —
-each fabric a `concept.treestruct` modeling a contextual dimension (e.g. time, intent, role).
-
-\`\`\`ts
-focus.context = Σ fabric[x]
-\`\`\`
-
-This layered weave defines how your anchor is interpreted.
-
-| fabric         | models...        | sample values           |
-|----------------|------------------|--------------------------|
-| `fabric.time`  | temporal frame   | `future`, `ongoing`      |
-| `fabric.intent`| motivation       | `goal`, `plan`, `urge`   |
-| `fabric.role`  | identity         | `agent`, `observer`      |
-
-> 🧠 context = **mesh of treestructs**, not a flat state
-> motion can traverse
-
----
-
-## 🧪 focus profiles
-
-### 🔋 deep + narrow + sharp
-**“radial probe”**
-**scenario:** studying [concept:"LiFePO₄ battery"]
-
-- `depth++` → abstraction to system-level
-- `breadth--` → single battery type
-- `acuity++` → welds, voltages, safety specs
-→ **outcome:** precision system mastery
-
----
-
-### 🍳 shallow + narrow + sharp
-**“precision grip”**
-**scenario:** perfecting [concept:"fried egg"]
-
-- `depth--` → no upstream generalization
-- `breadth--` → one dish
-- `acuity++` → timing, viscosity, granularity
-→ **outcome:** localized procedural expertise
-
----
-
-### 🧂 shallow + wide + sharp
-**“horizontal analyzer”**
-**scenario:** comparing [concept:"cereal brands"]
-
-- `depth--` → surface only
-- `breadth++` → includes 5–10 brands
-- `acuity++` → price, sugar, fiber
-→ **outcome:** fast lateral triage
-
----
-
-### 🧩 shallow + narrow + substructed
-**“internal dissector”**
-**scenario:** modeling [concept:"bicycle gear system"]
-
-- `depth--`
-- `breadth--`
-- `acuity.substructs++` → chains, sprockets, resistance ratios
-→ **outcome:** internal mechanism mastery
-
----
-
-### 🌐 deep + wide + fuzzy
-**“system mapper”**
-**scenario:** modeling [concept:"family routine"]
-
-- `depth++` → from values to tasks
-- `breadth++` → all life domains
-- `acuity--` → rhythms, not details
-→ **outcome:** holistic structure design
-
----
-
-## 🔁 integrations
-
-Cortal focus connects to:
-
-- `concept.treestruct` → the semantic terrain of nodes and links
-- `concept.gravity` → why some concepts act as attention magnets
-- `concept.perspectives` → defines your frame of motion and relative center
-
-> You never see the whole forest —
-> only what your attention lightcone illuminates.