Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Design/Awareness/Consciousness (DAC)

 

Conceptual impressions surrounding this post have yet to be substantiated, corroborated, confirmed or woven into a larger argument, context or network. Objective: To generate symbolic links between scientific discovery, design awareness and consciousness.

Human creation—whether artistic, cognitive, symbolic, or technological—is best understood not as a linear progression from idea to outcome, but as a coordinated event unfolding across multiple energetic and informational layers. From both a metaphysical and academically informed perspective, the act of creation emerges through the synchronization of distinct yet interdependent fields of energy in motion: quantum, plasmic, fractal, and holographic. Each field governs a different aspect of how potential becomes form, how energy becomes structure, and how structure becomes meaning. 

Seen in this way, creativity is fundamentally a coordination problem. It is not enough for an idea to arise, nor for energy to be present, nor even for patterns to repeat coherently. Creation succeeds only when potential, drive, structure, and meaning are brought into alignment along a shared trajectory. Design, within this framework, functions as the mediating intelligence that makes such alignment possible. Rather than merely shaping outputs, design establishes the operating frame of creation—defining purpose, constraints, audience, medium, and criteria for success. In process-theoretical terms, design acts as a rule of coherence, allowing heterogeneous dynamics to cooperate without collapsing into chaos or stagnation (DeLanda, 2016; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). 


Multidimensional Fields Concept ChatGPT5.2


1. Human Creation as a Multi-Field Process 

From a metaphysical standpoint, creation unfolds as a stacked dynamic event across multiple ontological strata. Each field describes a different mode by which energy organizes, propagates, and stabilizes meaning at distinct scales of experience. The creative process begins in a condition of openness, where multiple futures coexist and nothing is yet determined. This initial phase corresponds to the quantum field of virtual potential and probability (QFVPP), a pre-formative substrate in which ambiguity, intuition, and indeterminate possibility dominate. Subjectively, this is experienced as a sense that something is present but unnamed; a felt proximity to meaning that has not yet crystallized. In philosophical physics, this aligns with the notion of potentiality as a real condition prior to stabilization (Heisenberg, 1958).

At this stage, design does not impose answers. Its role is preparatory rather than directive. By establishing boundaries, intentions, or constraints, design prevents the field of potential from dissolving into noise. It creates a space in which selection can occur without premature closure, allowing a coherent pathway to emerge from indeterminacy rather than being forced upon it. Left on its own, the quantum field produces inspiration without articulation—ideas that arise but cannot yet be meaningfully sustained.

* * *


Quantum Field of Virtual Potential and Probability ChatGPT5.2


Dominant field: Quantum (virtual possibilities / probabilistic emergence). 
Design’s function: Prevents the potential-space from becoming noise by preparing for selection—not by forcing an answer, but by creating a structure within which the right answer can appear (Bohm, 1980). 

2. Quantum Field: Potential, Indeterminacy, and Choice 
Metaphysical Role (QFVPP) 
The quantum field represents the pre-formative substrate of creation: a realm of virtual potential, probability amplitudes, and indeterminate futures. In creative acts this corresponds to intuition, sudden insight, and the moment of selection among possibilities. 


Theoretical Image of the QFVPP

Attributes 
- Non-locality and entanglement 
- Probabilistic emergence rather than determinism 
- Sensitivity to observations and intention 
- Ground of novelty and discontinuous insight 

Shortcomings 
- Lacks structure and narrative continuity on its own 
- Cannot sustain meaning without higher-order patterning 
- Operates below conscious symbolic control (unconscious) 

Selective Attention: Design Filters Relevance
What happens: Out of many possibilities, a few become “charged” and start to feel relevant. The creative act gains direction: a theme, a form factor, a constraint, an initial gesture. 
Dominant field: Still Quantum, but now transitioning. 
Design’s function: Selection and commitment. Design functions as a measurement-like operation: it stabilizes one pathway enough to begin movement; often via a constraint. This echoes the notion that stabilization is what makes an otherwise indefinite field actionable (Heisenberg, 1958; Bohm, 1980). 

In isolation. The quantum field produces inspiration without form – concepts and ideas that arise but cannot yet be articulated. 

 * * * 

3. Plasmic Field: Vital Energy and Creative Drive 
As selection begins to occur, creative activity transitions into the plasmic field. Here, energy becomes mobilized. Emotion, desire, urgency, and momentum surge into the chosen direction, fueling action and iteration. Metaphysically, the plasmic field corresponds to vitality, affect, and creative drive—the experiential force that propels work forward. This is the phase of intensity, where production accelerates and the creator often enters states of flow or deep engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Metaphysical Role 
The plasmic field refers to energy in a highly active, fluid and transformational state. Metaphysically, it corresponds to drive, affect, libido, emotional intensity and creative force. – the fuel of creation.


Plasmic Energy Core : ChatGPT5.2

Yet plasmic energy, while essential, is inherently unstable. Without regulation, it risks overwhelming cognition or dissipating into burnout. Design again plays a critical role, not by suppressing intensity, but by channeling it. Through rhythms of work, iterative cycles, and bounded exploration, design transforms raw force into productive motion. Constraint here is not restrictive but enabling. By setting tolerances—what belongs and what does not—design preserves energy for subsequent phases, ensuring that intensity contributes to coherence rather than undermining it (DeLanda, 2016). Without such coordination, plasmic energy manifests as expression without refinement: powerful, but unintelligible.

Attributes 
- High energy density and responsiveness 
- Catalytic, transformative, an unstable 
- Bridges mind-body and emotion-thought 
- Associated with flow states and passion

 Shortcomings 
- Chaotic without guiding structure 
- Can overwhelm cognition and coherence 
- Susceptible to dissipation and burnout 
 
Energetic Mobilization: Plasmic Field 
What happens: Once a direction is chosen, energy surges into it. Emotion, desire, urgency, excitement, and momentum arise. This is the phase where you “make a lot,” rapidly iterate, and feel the work pulling you forward. 
Dominant field: Plasmic (vital intensity / kinetic momentum). 
Design’s function: Keeps intensity productive rather than chaotic. It creates channels, i.e. ideas, for energy—work rhythms, iteration loops, bounded exploration—so the force doesn’t burn out or explode the form. This matches models of creativity emphasizing the energizing function of flow and engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). 

Regulation: Design Constrains Intensity 
What happens: The act must avoid two extremes: over-control (killing energy) or under-control (losing coherence). Regulation is the moment you set tolerances: what belongs, what doesn’t, what the piece can hold. 
Dominant field: Plasmic remains strong, but begins to “cool” into structure. 
Design’s function: Introduces constraint as an enabling conditionboundaries that preserve energy for the next phases. In assemblage/process terms, constraints are not merely limits; they are productive operators that create stable emergence (DeLanda, 2016). 

Without coordination, plasmic energy manifests as raw expression without refinement – intensity without intelligibility. 


                                     * * * 



Fractal Field Concept ChatGPT5.2

4. Fractal Field: Recursive Structure and Self-Similarity 
Metaphysical Role As energy stabilizes, the creative process enters the domain of the fractal field. This field governs recursive structure and self-similarity across scales, allowing patterns discovered at one level to reappear coherently at others. Style, rhythm, proportion, and internal consistency emerge here. Motifs recur, internal rules become visible, and the work begins to exhibit identity across detail, section, and whole. Cognitively and perceptually, this phase aligns with the human tendency to recognize and generate structure through repetition with variation (Mandelbrot, 1982).

Design’s task at this stage is discriminative. It distinguishes meaningful recursion from accidental repetition, identifying which patterns carry identity and ensuring that they scale appropriately. Through articulation and refinement, design converts pattern into language—into composition, schema, and architecture. Periodic reintroductions of novelty from the quantum and plasmic fields prevent fractal recursion from becoming inert repetition or aesthetic stagnation (Kauffman, 1995). In isolation, the fractal field yields order without surprise: coherent, elegant, but lifeless systems.

Attributes 
- Self-similarity across scales 
- Recursive growth and feedback 
- Efficiency of pattern transmission 
- Natural alignment with cognition and perception 

Shortcomings 
- Can wrap creation in repetition 
- Risks aesthetics or conceptual stagnation 
- Requires novelty input from quantum/plasmic fields 

Pattern Stabilization: Fractal Field 
What happens: Repetition appears. Motifs recur. Internal rules become visible. This is where style emerges and the work becomes self-consistent across scales (detail → section → whole). 
Dominant field: Fractal (self-similar structure / scale invariance). 
Design’s function: Distinguishes essential recursion from accidental repetition. It selects which patterns carry identity, and it ensures those pattern's scale. The relationship to fractal dynamics is direct: coherence strengthens when structure repeats with variation (Mandelbrot, 1982). 

Articulation: Design Identifies Essential Patterns 
What happens: You begin to name the work’s grammar: “These are the core forms; these are the supporting forms.” This is editing, refinement, and structural decision-making. 
Dominant field: Fractal, with periodic returns to plasmic (energy) and quantum (novelty). 
Design’s function: Converts pattern into languagecomposition, system, schema, architecture. It prevents fractal recursion from becoming a loop (beautiful but stagnant) by periodically reintroducing novelty and re-checking purpose (Mandelbrot, 1982; Kauffman, 1995). 

Fractal’s alone yield order without surprise – beautiful but inert systems.
 
                                         * * *
 

Holographic Field ChatGPT5.2

5. Holographic Field: Meaning, Coherence and Wholeness 
Metaphysical Role 
The final integrative phase of creation unfolds within the holographic field. This field is responsible for meaning, coherence, and wholeness. In a holographic system, each part contains information about the whole, and the whole is distributed across its parts. In human creation, this corresponds to symbolic unity, narrative coherence, and the felt sense that a work “means something” beyond its components. Meaning is no longer added from the outside; it emerges from the internal resonance of the system itself (Bohm, 1980; Pribram, 1991).

Design here functions as semantic harmonization. It aligns intention, form, and perception, testing whether the artifact carries its meaning without explanation and whether its parts mutually reinforce one another. Coherence at this level is experiential rather than purely logical, resonating with enactive theories of cognition and meaning-making (Varela et al., 1991). Conceptually, the holographic field is best understood as a distributed encoding medium rather than a localized structure. Information is stored in interference patterns, not discrete symbols, and meaning emerges only through coherent engagement.

The Holographic field integrates all other fields into a meaningful whole, where each part reflects the totality. In human creation, this corresponds to symbolic unity, narrative coherence, and lived meaning. 

If visualized, a holographic field would appear as a volumetric interference lattice: translucent, depth-rich, and without a privileged center. Structure would be revealed through parallax and perspective rather than surface shading. Information would be encoded in phase relationships, visible only when interrogated by movement, attention, or coherence. Zooming into any region would reveal self-similar structures containing a distorted yet complete image of the whole, overlapping visually with fractal geometry while maintaining informational completeness. Forms would stabilize briefly under observation, then dissolve, giving the impression that the field responds to attention rather than passively existing. Memory-like afterimages—ghosted echoes of prior configurations—would suggest a stored history embedded in spatial patterning. Ideas (images) run rampant within a holographic framework.

Attributes 
- Whole-in-part encoding 
- Non-local coherence of information 
- Alignment of perception, memory, and intention 
- Resonance with consciousness and interpretation. 
Shortcomings 
- Dependent upon underlying energetic and structural fields 
- Susceptible to distortion if coherence is forced 
- Cannot generate energy of novelty independently 

Meaning Integration: Holographic Field 
What happens: The work becomes about something in a way that can be felt. Each part begins to “contain” the whole—your signature appears, not as branding but as coherence. This corresponds to holonomic/holographic metaphors where distributed encoding enables part–whole resonance (Pribram, 1991; Bohm, 1980). 
Dominant field: Holographic (whole-in-part resonance / felt coherence). 
Design’s function: Aligns intention, form, and perception. 
It asks: does the artifact carry its meaning without explanation? Are the parts mutually reinforcing? Here design operates as semantic harmonization—coherence that is experiential, not merely logical (Varela et al., 1991).

Conceptually, a holographic field is best understood not as a single surface or volume, but as a distributed encoding medium in which every local region contains information about the whole. If one were to visualize it, several core characteristics would dominate its appearance

1. Volumetric Interference Lattice 
A holographic field would appear as a three-dimensional interference pattern rather than discrete objects. 
• Fine, repeating wavefronts intersecting at multiple angles 
• MoirĂ©-like patterns that shift as the observer’s perspective changes 
• No privileged center: structure is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously Visually, this resembles overlapping translucent grids or wave-nets suspended in space, with depth revealed through parallax rather than shading. 

2. Phase-Encoded Transparency 
Unlike a solid or energetic field, a holographic field would be mostly transparent, yet richly structured. 
• Information encoded in phase, not amplitude 
• Subtle ripples, striations, and banding rather than bright emissions 
• Changes become visible only when “interrogated” by perspective, motion, or coherence 

(This aligns with physical holography, where an image emerges only when illuminated by a coherent reference beam.)

3. Recursive Self-Similarity 
Zooming into any region of the field would reveal the same structural logic at multiple scales. 
• Large interference arcs resolve into smaller lattices 
Each fragment contains a distorted but complete version of the whole 
• Boundaries dissolve into nested repetitions 
This is where the holographic field visually overlaps with fractal geometry, but with informational completeness rather than infinite detail. 

4. Observer-Dependent Emergence 
A defining visual feature would be that forms only stabilize when observed. 
• Shapes appear to “lock in” briefly, then dissolve 
• Apparent objects are standing wave intersections, not persistent entities 
• The field looks different depending on angle, distance, and focus 

In experiential terms, it would feel as though the field is responding to observation rather than passively existing. 

5. Memory-Like Afterimages 
Because holographic systems encode persistence through interference, the field might exhibit: 
• Ghosted echoes of previous configurations 
Overlapping temporal layers, like multiple exposures 
• A sense of stored history embedded in spatial patterning. This lends the field a mnemonic quality, consistent with interpretations of holography in consciousness and memory theory. 


6. Symbolic Analogy 
Within your yet to be completed DAC / 14-Gate framework, the holographic field functions not as an action field but as a context field—the substrate where perception, memory, and identity co-inhere. Geometrically, it aligns with spherical or dodecahedral volumes and wave-based interpretations of sacred geometry lattices such as the Flower of Life or Metatron’s Cube. It appears quiet rather than energetic, deep rather than chaotic, and infinitely informative despite minimal visual density where semi-transparent layers encode multiple epistemic gates simultaneously. 

If you could see a holographic field, it would not look “energetic” in the plasmic sense or “chaotic” in the quantum sense. It would appear: 
• Quiet 
• Deep 
• Patterned 
• Perspective-sensitive 
• Infinitely informative despite minimal visual density.

* * *

Harmonization: Design Aligns Form and Symbol 

What happens: Final integration and “lock-in.” Contradictions are resolved or made deliberately meaningful. The work’s surface and depth agree. Dominant field: Holographic, supported by fractal structure and regulated plasmic energy
Design’s function: Performs coherence-testing: remove an element—does the whole weaken? Replace a motif, does the identity break? Harmonization is where the piece becomes resilient: a coherent whole whose parts are necessary rather than arbitrary (Bohm, 1980; Pribram, 1991).


The final act of creation involves harmonization: contradictions are resolved or rendered deliberately meaningful, surface and depth come into agreement, and the work achieves resilience. Removing an element weakens the whole; altering a motif breaks identity. This is coherence-testing at the highest level, where meaning, structure, and energy are fully integrated (Bohm, 1980; Pribram, 1991). Without support from the other fields, however, the holographic domain collapses into symbolism without vitality—coherence without embodiment. 

Importantly, completion does not terminate the creative process. Integration often reopens possibility. Meaning generates new questions, which reopen quantum potential, mobilize new energy, stabilize new patterns, and deepen coherence. Design maintains this controlled recursion, ensuring that emergence proceeds through iterative cycles of constraint and novelty rather than uncontrolled repetition (Kauffman, 1995; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). 

A successful creative act therefore requires temporal coordination rather than dominance. The quantum field opens possibilities, the plasmic field energizes intention, the fractal field stabilizes patterns, and the holographic field integrates meaning. This sequence is recursive and non-linear. 

Failure occurs when one field overwhelms the others: excess quantum produces indecision, excess plasmic yields chaos, excess fractal leads to rigidity, and excess holographic results in abstraction without embodiment.


Coordination Dynamics in Creation Functional Integration 
A successful creative act requires temporal Coordination 
1. Quantum Field is filled with potential opening possibilities 
2. Plasmic Field energizes the intention and desires 
3. Fractal Field stabilizes patterns 
4. Holographic Field integrates meaning 

This sequence is non-linear and recursive, not hierarchical. 

Failure modes 
- Excess quantum – fragmentation, indecision 
- Excess plasmic – chaos, incoherence 
- Excess fractal – rigidity, clichĂ© 
- Excess holographic – abstraction without embodiment 

Creation fails when one field dominates rather than participates. Creation emerges when fields synchronize with intent. 

Design functions as 
 - A translator between quantum (QFVPP) possibility and holographic meaning 
- A regulator of plasmic intensity 
- A curator of fractal recursion. Thus, human creation becomes a synchronistic event not merely an act of expression. 

From a design-conscious perspective, design is the mediating intelligence that aligns a grand assortment of fields of energy in motion. It translates quantum possibility into holographic meaning, regulates plasmic intensity, and curates fractal recursion. Human creation, under this model, is not merely an expressive output, but a synchronistic eventa coordinated convergence of energy, structure, meaning and purpose into a coherent act of becoming.


References (APA) 

- Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row. 
- DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press. 
- Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman. 
- Pribram, K. H. (1991). Brain and perception: Holonomy and structure in figural processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
- Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Bantam Books. 
- Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.

The author generated some of this text in part with ChatGPT 5.2 OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

* * *



* * *
What is design?
What isn't?




Edited: 
Find your truth. Know your mind. Follow your heart. Love eternal will not be denied. Discernment is an integral part of self-mastery. You may share this post on a non-commercial basis, the author and URL to be included. Please note … posts are continually being edited. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 C.G. Garant. 







Saturday, January 17, 2026

(DAC) An Agency of Change

Conceptual impressions surrounding this post have yet to be substantiated, corroborated, confirmed or woven into a larger argument, context or network. Objective: To generate symbolic links between scientific discovery, design awareness and consciousness.

A Sequential Methodology for Balancing Change within the DAC Framework 

Within the metaphysical orientation of the Design/Awareness/Consciousness (DAC) model, change is not a random disturbance imposed upon a static reality. Rather, change is understood as an orchestrated movement of consciousness through structured fields of meaning, possibility, and form. To apply a balanced methodology of change requires more than simply acting upon the world; it requires the coordinated alignment of several foundational elements: ontology, semiosis, dynamics, temporality, creativity, causality, structure, and epistemology. Each of these elements represents a distinct dimension of the design process, and together they compose the full cycle through which consciousness reorganizes itself and its environment. 

A typical or sequential scenario for applying balanced change within DAC begins with ontology ... the grounding recognition of what is assumed to exist. Ontology functions as the initial zero point horizon of design consciousness, defining the field of what is considered real, meaningful, and actionable (Heidegger, 1962). Before any transformation can occur, the designer/observer must first encounter a state of being that calls for reconfiguration. In metaphysical terms, this is the moment when the current “operating system” of reality no longer suffices to accommodate emerging needs and intentions. The ontological layer therefore establishes the raw material upon which change will be enacted: the perceived world, the self, and their relationship. 

From ontology emerges semiosis, the process by which experiences are translated into symbols and meanings. Within the DAC model, semiosis is the mechanism through which the designer interprets the ontological field and begins to recognize patterns of significance (Peirce, 1931–1958). No change can be initiated without the capacity to name, frame, and interpret what is occurring. Signs convert undifferentiated experience into communicable structure; they allow the observer to recognize discrepancies between what is and what is desired. In this sense, semiosis serves as the bridge between being and becoming, translating raw existence into actionable information. 

Once meaning has been generated, the element of dynamics becomes active. Dynamics refers to the energetic movements and tensions that propel systems toward transformation. Drawing from process philosophy, reality may be understood as a field of continual becoming rather than fixed substance (Whitehead, 1978). Within DAC, dynamics represent the felt pressures of imbalance, aspiration, and intention that demand reorganization. The designer experiences dynamics as motivation, conflict, or creative unrest, signals that the current configuration of elements is insufficient. 

Temporality enters next as the contextual field within which change unfolds. All design occurs in time, and time itself is not merely a neutral container but an active dimension shaping possibilities (Bergson, 1911). The DAC methodology recognizes that past experiences, present awareness, and future intentions interact continuously. A balanced approach to change therefore requires temporal sensitivity: understanding when to act, when to wait, and how to sequence interventions so that they align with natural rhythms of development. 

Creativity follows as the generative response to dynamic tension within temporal context. Creativity in the DAC model is not simply artistic novelty but the capacity of consciousness to reconfigure existing elements into new forms (Bohm, 1998). At this stage the designer imagines alternative structures, solutions, and pathways. Creativity provides the visionary blueprint that allows new possibilities to enter the field of experience. Without this imaginative leap, change would remain purely reactive rather than genuinely transformative. 

Causality then organizes creative insight into coherent chains of influence. Within a metaphysical design framework, causality is not strictly linear but participatory and multi-directional; intentions, perceptions, and structures mutually affect one another (Bohm, 1980). The DAC practitioner must therefore consider how proposed actions will reverberate across multiple levels of the system. Balanced change requires causal awareness: an understanding of how small adjustments in one domain can produce large effects in another. 

Structure emerges as the crystallization of causal intention into stable form. Every act of change ultimately seeks embodiment—new habits, systems, artifacts, or conceptual frameworks (Simon, 1969). Structure provides continuity and coherence, allowing creative ideas to take root in durable configurations. In DAC terms, structure is the moment when potential becomes actualized design. 

Finally, epistemology completes the cycle by reflecting upon what has been learned through the process. Epistemology concerns how knowledge is generated, validated, and integrated (Polanyi, 1966). After structural changes are implemented, the designer reassesses their assumptions, interpretations, and outcomes. This reflective stage updates the original ontology, thereby initiating a new round of semiosis and transformation. Balanced change is therefore not a single event but a recursive spiral of learning and redesign. 

When these eight elements are approached sequentially and holistically, the DAC model offers a comprehensive methodology for harmonizing the forces of transformation. Ontology provides the field, semiosis the language, dynamics the motive power, temporality the rhythm, creativity the vision, causality the logic, structure the embodiment, and epistemology the wisdom. Imbalance occurs whenever one element dominates at the expense of the others for example, when creativity runs unchecked by structure, or when rigid ontology resists necessary dynamics. The art of metaphysical design lies in maintaining equilibrium among all dimensions so that change unfolds as an integrated expression of conscious intention. 

Thus, the balanced application of energy across these elements constitutes a practical path for intentional evolution. Change within DAC is not merely something that happens to consciousness; it is something consciousness learns to design. 

References (APA) 

- Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution. Henry Holt. 
- Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge. 
- Bohm, D. (1998). On creativity. Routledge. 
- Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927) 
- Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–8). Harvard University Press. 
- Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. 
- Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press. 
- Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality (Corrected ed.). Free Press. 


The author generated some of this text in part with ChatGPT 5.2 OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

* * *
What is design?
What isn't?





Edited: 
Find your truth. Know your mind. Follow your heart. Love eternal will not be denied. Discernment is an integral part of self-mastery. You may share this post on a non-commercial basis, the author and URL to be included. Please note … posts are continually being edited. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 C.G. Garant. 

The Design Reformation

Conceptual impressions surrounding this post have yet to be substantiated, corroborated, confirmed or woven into a larger argument, context or network. Objective: To generate symbolic links between scientific discovery, design awareness and consciousness.

* * *

Octagonal DAC Model

Life, when interpreted through the lens of Design/Awareness/Consciousness (DAC), can be understood as a projection of Light operating within deliberately established constraints—what designers recognize as structure. Within this framework, form appears not as an isolated object but as a reflection of underlying frequencies coherently resonating with the intentions and perceptions of the observer. Reality, therefore, is not merely encountered; it is continuously composed through participatory awareness. What the observer experiences as “real” is a dynamic field of symbolic impressions organized into meaningful patterns and sequences of events (Bohm, 1980; Peirce, 1931–1958). 

From the DAC perspective, change is not accidental but designed. Consciousness interacts with what may be termed the Quantum Field of Virtual Potential and Probability (QFVPP); a generative domain from which possibilities emerge into form. The designer, acting as observer, translator, and creator, interprets these possibilities and organizes them into lived structures. However, there comes a moment in every creative cycle when the existing structure no longer sufficiently expresses the intentions, desires, or developmental needs of the observer. The current “operating system” of identity, belief, and behavior begins to fail in meeting evolving requirements. In design terms, the existing model becomes obsolete and must be re-imagined (Simon, 1996; Schön, 1983). 

This moment of insufficiency initiates the process of transformative change. In the DAC model, such change is recognized as an upgrade cycle—a necessary redesign of the internal blueprint guiding perception and action. Just as software must be updated to address new challenges, the designer of lived experience must construct a new architecture of meaning that contains broader attributes, richer options, and more complex vectors of possibility. These vectors are not limited to what is currently measurable; rather, they include imaginative, emotional, and intuitive dimensions that expand the field of potential action (Bateson, 1972; DeLanda, 2016). 

Acting as one’s own designer requires the acquisition of new methods, perspectives, and symbolic tools. The observer must recognize that the identity once accepted—composed of prior agreements, habits, and narratives—may no longer resonate with emerging inner awareness. DAC asserts that the individual is not the design itself but the designer of the design. When this realization arises, cognitive dissonance naturally appears between what has been, what is presently experienced, and what is sensed as possible. This tension is not a failure; it is the signal that a new phase of creative evolution is underway (Festinger, 1957; Jung, 1964). 

During such transitions, a state of temporary dormancy often emerges. Externally, this may appear as confusion or stagnation, but metaphysically it represents a period of gestation in which the designer reconnects with deeper creative capacities. Awareness grows that one harbors the power to become a “formless creator”—a designer capable of reorganizing the symbolic structures through which reality is interpreted. New identities and new desires begin to surface, frequently delivered through signs, symbols, and synchronicities that bridge conscious and subconscious processes (Jung, 1960; Peirce, 1931–1958). 

In this stage, the designer crafts a revised blueprint guided not solely by rational calculation but by an integrated intelligence of feeling and thought. The DAC model interprets this as the harmonization of complementary forces: emotion and cognition, intuition and analysis, heart (yin) and intelligence (yang). The emerging design must extend beyond the immediate sensory field and orient toward higher frequencies of awareness ... toward Light as a metaphor for expanded coherence with the QFVPP/Source. As the internal blueprint is upgraded, what is observed and created begins to vibrate at a more refined frequency and from a more comprehensive point of observation, i.e. zero point. (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Bohm, 1980). 

Thus, change within the DAC framework is not merely adaptation; it is a conscious act of redesign. The designer recognizes that every lived structure—identity, relationship, vocation, worldview, is a temporary configuration of symbolic energy. When resonance fades, transformation becomes both necessary and inevitable. By intentionally engaging the redesign process, the observer reclaims authorship over experience and re-aligns with the creative intelligence from which all form arises. Change, therefore, is the natural movement of Design Consciousness seeking ever greater coherence, complexity, and creative freedom. 

* * *

The design process, when viewed through the metaphysical framework of Design Consciousness (DAC), is not merely a sequence of technical operations. It is better understood as a living movement of mind and world toward mutual transformation. Design, in this sense, is the intentional choreography of possibility: a disciplined journey by which consciousness engages with the raw potential of reality and gradually gives it shape, direction, and meaning. The dynamics of the design process are therefore inseparable from the dynamics of consciousness itself. 

At the origin of all design activity lies a metaphysical condition of openness. Before there is a problem to solve or an object to construct, there is a field of unrealized potential, a horizon of virtual possibilities that have not yet condensed into form. Philosophers of process and difference have long described this domain as the generative ground of becoming (Deleuze, 1994; Whitehead, 1929). Within DAC, this virtual field functions as the substrate from which every act of creation emerges. The design process begins the moment consciousness senses a tension within this field: an awareness that what is, could be otherwise. Change is therefore initiated not by tools or techniques, but by a shift in perception. 

This initial moment of recognition activates the first essential dynamic of the design process: framing. To design is to draw distinctions within undifferentiated possibility. Herbert Simon defined design as the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones (Simon, 1996). Metaphysically interpreted, this transformation requires an act of conceptual boundary-making. The designer, operating as an agent of DAC, establishes contexts, constraints, and purposes that render the amorphous world intelligible. Through framing, the infinite field of what might occur is shaped into a finite field of what can be addressed. The act of contextualization is therefore the first way in which the design process structures change. 

Yet framing alone does not produce movement. The design process advances through a dynamic interplay between imagination and material engagement. Cognitive science has shown that thinking is not an abstract computation detached from the world but an embodied activity arising from interaction with environments (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). In DAC, ideas are not pre-formed entities waiting to be executed; they are emergent patterns that arise through contact with sketches, models, materials, and social contexts. Donald Schön described this as a “reflective conversation with the situation” (Schön, 1983). Each gesture of making provokes new perceptions, which in turn reshape intention. Change is thus initiated through iterative cycles of action and reflection in which consciousness learns from its own externalizations. 

This contextual framing is inseparable from cognition and embodiment. Contemporary theories of enactive cognition emphasize that perception and action are not separate stages but mutually shaping processes (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). Within DAC, the design process is therefore an embodied dialogue between mind, material, and environment. Ideas emerge not as abstract mental objects but as evolving relationships between intention and circumstance

These cycles reveal a second crucial dynamic: the semiotic transformation of experience. Design operates through signs—drawings, diagrams, prototypes, narratives, and symbols that mediate between inner intuition and outer reality. From a Peircean perspective, meaning is not inherent in objects but emerges through interpretive processes that connect signs to contexts and purposes (Peirce, 1931–1958). Within DAC, the design process functions as a semiotic engine that converts vague feelings and intuitions into communicable structures. Every representation reorganizes the field of possibilities by making some futures imaginable and others unthinkable. The dynamics of design are therefore inseparable from the dynamics of meaning-making. 

As design consciousness engages repeatedly with these representations, a process of emergence unfolds. Complex systems theory teaches that order often arises not from top-down control but from the self-organizing interaction of many elements (Goldstein, 1999). In a similar way, the design process gives rise to new forms through the accumulation of small decisions, adjustments, and discoveries. Constraints do not merely limit creativity; they generate it by channeling attention and reducing overwhelming variety (Ashby, 1956). In DAC terms, the process of designing is morphogenetic: it brings new structures into being through the guided evolution of relationships among ideas, materials, and contexts. Change becomes stabilized as pattern. 

A further dynamic concerns intentionality. The design process is guided by values, purposes, and visions of what ought to be. These teleological dimensions align with John Dewey’s view that creative inquiry is directed toward the reconstruction of experience (Dewey, 1934). Within DAC, intention operates as an orienting vector that continually re-aligns the process toward coherence. Each iteration of design recalibrates goals in response to feedback, producing a living trajectory rather than a linear plan. Change is contextualized through evolving criteria of success that are themselves transformed by the process

Importantly, the design process does not only alter external conditions; it reshapes the designer. Through engagement with materials, symbols, and problems, consciousness reorganizes its own structures of perception. The designer learns new distinctions, acquires new sensitivities, and inhabits new perspectives. This reciprocal transformation reflects the enactive principle that knowing and doing are inseparable (Varela et al., 1991). In DAC, design is therefore a co-evolutionary event: artifact, context, and consciousness develop together. The deepest change initiated by design is the expansion of awareness itself. 

Seen as a whole, the metaphysical dynamics of the DAC design process can be summarized as a movement through four interwoven phases. First, perception opens a space of possibility. Second, framing constructs a meaningful context for action. Third, iterative engagement translates intuition into form through semiotic and material experimentation. Fourth, emergent coherence stabilizes new patterns of order. These phases do not occur once but recur continuously, forming a spiral of ongoing becoming. Design is less a straight line than a rhythma pulse of attention moving between what is, and what might be. 

In this light, the design process becomes more than a method for producing artifacts. It is a fundamental mode of participation in reality’s own creative unfolding. DAC understands design as the bridge between potential and actuality, between imagination and our world. It initiates change by awakening new possibilities, and it contextualizes change by embedding those possibilities within structures of meaning, constraint, and form. To design is therefore to engage consciously in the metaphysical drama of emergence ... to take part, with intention and care, in the shaping of the real. 

References (APA)

- Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. University of Chicago Press. 

- Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge. 

- Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press. 

- DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press. 

- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. 

- Jung, C. G. (1960). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. Princeton University Press. 

- Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbols. Doubleday. 

- Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–8). Harvard University Press. 

- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. 

- Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press. 

The author generated some of this text in part with ChatGPT 5.2 OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

* * *


* * *

Design releases the soul
by means of creation.


Edited: 
Find your truth. Know your mind. Follow your heart. Love eternal will not be denied. Discernment is an integral part of self-mastery. You may share this post on a non-commercial basis, the author and URL to be included. Please note … posts are continually being edited. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 C.G. Garant. 

Friday, January 9, 2026

Design Metaphysics: The Impact of Emotion Upon Design/Awareness/Consciousness (DAC)

Conceptual impressions surrounding this post have yet to be substantiated, corroborated, confirmed or woven into a larger argument, context or network. Objective: To generate symbolic links between scientific discovery, design awareness and consciousness.

Metaphysically speaking, not all emotions are fully measurable, and the reasons are structural rather than merely technical. The limitation arises from the nature of emotions themselves, not from deficiencies in instruments or methods. 

What might “measurable” mean? Measurement presupposes at three conditions. 
1. The phenomenon must hold a repeatable structure. It must be stable
2. It must be distinguishable from its context in other words, it must have observable boundaries and, 
3. It must be comparable across all observers, they must share the same reference frame

Typically an emotion will often violate one or more of these conditions. Metaphysically, emotions are not objects; they are transitional events in energy-in-motion that pass through multiple ontological layers before they stabilize … if they ever do. 

Some emotions can be measured if they collapse into measurable signatures because they strongly couple to physical and symbolic systems. These include hormonal release patterns (e.g. cortisol, oxytocin), neural activation regularities, automatic responses (heart rate variability), behavioral consistency across populations and linguistic codification and cultural stability. These all have high coherence and low ambiguity at the biological-symbolic interface, ex. fear, anger, basic pleasures/displeasures and stress. When stability is in a downstream mode and not the emotion in its original form.
 

Abstract Human Emotions ChatGPT 5.2
 
Emotions often exist prior to form and therefore are not fully measurable. Many emotions arise as pre-symbolic, pre-linguistic fields: Intuitively uneasy, subliminal longing, creative anticipation, sacred awe, existential melancholy, LOVE in its generative form. At this stage, emotion exists as a vector tendency, not a discrete state because there is no fixed boundary to measure … only directionality. 

In reference to a field-based metaphysics, emotions are multi-field phenomena. At quantum levels emotions takes on the impression of a probability gradient, plasmic field as an energetic charge and/or intensity, fractally as a recursive pattern over time and holographically as a particular coherence reflecting upon a certain meaning or identity. Measurement typically operates one field at a time; an emotion that spans all four fields cannot be fully captured without collapse or reduction. 

Observation changes in reference to emotion. Emotion is based upon an observer and his/her corresponding participation in a certain situation or circumstance. To actually measure an emotion, the subject must first reflect upon it, symbolically stabilize it which in turn alters its original state. Measurement thus converts an energy-in-motion, i.e. e-motion, first as experience then into an emotion-as-representation (sign, symbol, metaphor or analogy). Therefore, what is actually being measured is a post-transformational artifact. 

Emotions do not have fixed ontological locations. An emotion may exist between two or more people, across time, as a relational tension, a cultural resonance or as an unexpressed potential. Phenomena are distributed and not localized objects. Measurement in these cases presumes there is a locality. 

The attempt to fully measure all emotions commits a metaphysical error. When dealt categorically emotions are treated as “states” of energy in motion when they are actually processes. Emotions are often treated as quantities, when many are qualitative transitions. Emotions are also treated as outputs when many just describe a generative condition. 

 * * * 

WHAT CAN BE MEASURED AND WHAT CANNOT? 

YES                
MEASURABLE?                                WHY?
Physiological correlates          stable physical signatures 
Behavioral expressions           repeatable patterns 

PARTIALLY
Reported feelings                     language filters the experience 

APPROXIMATELY 
Emotional intensity                  scalar but context-dependent 

NO 
Emotional meaning                  contextual and symbolic 
Emotional emergence               pre-form and observer dependent 
Emotional potential                  exists as a probability 
Transformational love              field-generative, not reactive 

CONCLUSION 
Emotions are not fully measurable because they are events and not objects. They often exist before form, they span multiple ontological fields, measurement collapses what it observes and that essentially, emotion lies in relation and not location. Measurement can track what emotions do, but not what emotions are at their origin. In design consciousness terms, emotion is the vector field that precedes structure. Measurement can only begin after structure appears. 

Emotions restore coherence when they are allowed to complete their gating specific function without being collapsed into premature meaning or action (ref: Emotional Operating Protocol (EOP) for Design/Awareness/Consciousness (DAC) 14 gate architecture) 

References (APA 7th Edition) 

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Establishes that emotions are constructed, context-dependent processes rather than fixed biological modules. 

Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085709  Demonstrates limits of emotional measurability and the gap between physiology and subjective experience. 

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt Brace. Grounds emotions in bodily states while explicitly rejecting full reduction to measurable variables. 

Damasio, A. R. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Pantheon Books. Supports the claim that emotions are transitional processes that become measurable only after partial stabilization. 

Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware: A pragmatics of experiencing. John Benjamins. Provides phenomenological evidence that reflective observation alters lived emotional experience. 

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 Supports field-based and probabilistic models of affect that resist discrete measurement. 

James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), 188–205. Classic argument that emotions are processes, not entities, anticipating modern critiques of emotional objectification. 

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945) Foundational text for understanding emotion as embodied, relational, and non-localizable. 

Pessoa, L. (2017). The cognitive-emotional brain: From interactions to integration. MIT Press. Demonstrates that emotions are distributed, network-level phenomena rather than isolatable states. 

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press. Key support for the claim that emotions emerge from participatory, multi-level systems and cannot be fully captured by third-person measurement alone. 

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. Free Press. Metaphysical foundation for treating emotions as events in process rather than measurable substances. 

Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and selfhood: Investigating the first-person perspective. MIT Press. Clarifies why subjective emotional experience resists total objectification without distortion. 

The author generated some of this text in part with ChatGPT 5.2 OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

* * *
"To believe is to accept another's truth.
To know is your own creation."
Anonymous

* * *



Edited: 
Find your truth. Know your mind. Follow your heart. Love eternal will not be denied. Discernment is an integral part of self-mastery. You may share this post on a non-commercial basis, the author and URL to be included. Please note … posts are continually being edited. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 C.G. Garant.