rhachet-roles-ehmpathy 1.15.13 → 1.15.15

package/dist/roles/bhrain/briefs/cognition/cog101.concept.treestruct.coords.3.descriptive.md

@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-# 🧭 .brief: `cog101.concept.treestruct.coordinates.descriptive`
-
-## .why
-Use this brief if you want to:
-
-- **understand how concepts vary across peers**, not just across levels of abstraction
-- **navigate laterally** within a concept space — across similar-level alternatives
-- **distinguish a concept from its siblings** by highlighting descriptive differences
-- **identify the descriptive axes** a concept can vary along (e.g., flavor, size, style, plausibility)
-- **model variation, contrast, or diversity** within a semantic category
-- **support analogy-making, reframing, or contrastive analysis** between similar ideas
-
----
-
-## .what
-The **descriptive coordinate** of a concept defines its **angular position** in the `TreeStruct`.
-It captures **how a concept differs from its peers** — not by abstraction, but by **descriptive variation**.
-
-This is an **angular motion**, moving **around the same level** of abstraction.
-
-Where radial abstraction answers “what is this an instance of?”,
-descriptive variation asks “**what kind of this** is it?”
-
----
-
-## 🧱 structure
-
-Each concept can vary along one or more **descriptive semantic axes**,
-which define the dimensions by which peer concepts differ.
-
-Examples of descriptive axes:
-
-| axis name         | example variations                                | describes...                      |
-|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
-| **qualitative**   | red / blue / green                                | color                             |
-| **quantitative**  | small / medium / large                            | size                              |
-| **stylistic**     | formal / casual / ironic                          | tone or mode of expression        |
-| **temporal**      | recent / ongoing / historical                     | time-related state                |
-| **systemic**      | part / module / whole                             | structural composition            |
-| **behavioral**    | aggressive / passive / cooperative                | attitude or action pattern        |
-| **plausibility**  | absurd / unlikely / likely / obvious              | perceived believability or realism|
-
----
-
-## 🔄 angular traversal
-
-Descriptive motion is **lateral** or **angular** — it moves among **peers at the same abstraction level**.
-Think of concepts orbiting the same distance from the core, but **differing in character**.
-
-This enables operations like:
-
-- `<reframe>` — view the same concept from another descriptive lens
-- `<contrast>` — emphasize a difference along one axis
-- `<analogize>` — map lateral structure to a different context
-
----
-
-## 📌 key point
-> Descriptive motion defines **how** something *is that thing*, not *what* thing it is.
-
-A “banana” and a “mango” are **peers** under the **categorical abstraction** "fruit" —
-but they differ descriptively by flavor, texture, shape, and usage.
-
-Descriptive axes **reveal the variation space** within a category.

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.