isomorphicity • gary e. davis • berkeley


	Project	iso-belonging

	isomorphicity gary e. davis	September 2, 2025

Normally (lexically) ‘isomorphism’ is associated with biological and physical structures, but it’s also a possible feature of conceptual modeling, e.g., in gestalt psychology.

In the 1970s, social philosopher Jürgen Habermas prospected isomorphic relations for scaling social-evolutionary modeling relative to developments
of interpersonal relations. (He called it “ego-to-ego” development—> “group-to-group,” then modeled that further relative to Kohlbergian moral development modeling.)

The simplest isomophism is outside/inside (external/internal), from integral cellular boundary forming (and “self”/not self in antigen formation) through internalization / externalization and receptiveness / responsiveness (which I employ as rc/rs interality) to person-al differentiation: public / private (socio-political), “our” / “their” lineage (cultural), in-group / out-group (interpersonal), s/p differentiality (selfidentical), and S/s differentiation (self-reflective), which altogether, across this bi-modal continuum, may model integral differentiation as generative belonging together of complements (generative identity-in-difference).

Other kinds of common bi-modality include tangible / intangible, surface/depth, and focal / horizonal.

[Such manifold bi-modalism is post-Dialectical, post-differentiating as X versus not-X, positionality versus negative differentiation.

Bi-modal isomorphism (manifoldly exemplified) is one abstractive form of manifold modality (3-fold, 4-fold, n-fold), not the primal complexity of anything, from the n-fold morphogenesis of life through begenic person-ality.]

next—> a 3-fold spirit of intelligent life