Tetrahedral Configuration of Embodied Knowledge in Metabolic Cycles

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 8 Dec 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Implications for 4-fold categories, psychosocial organization, world dynamics and self-referential modelling.

Introduction

8 Dec 2025 – The appropriateness of a tetrahedral model of disparate domains has been extensively discussed separately as a form of mnemonic geometry offering clues on how to “kiss-touch” and “make-up” (The Secret Pathway between Configurations of Otherness? 2025; Comprehension of the Sustainability of Elusive Fourfold Dynamics, 2025). In addition to the relevance of such a model as a template for reframing the relationship between traditional categories, psychosocial categories, and logical connectives, there is the possibility explored here of exploring its relevance to metabolic cycles fundamental to life. These are many efforts to present these in complex maps in two dimensions. The cycles remain incomprehensible to most — despite exemplifying knowledge necessarily embodied by all.

The approach taken here then recognizes that there is a degree of systemic correspondence between the seemingly disparate pattern of metabolic cycles, psychodynamics, and the world dynamics (modelled as World3) basic to the influential Limits to Growth study, originally promoted by the Club of Rome in 1972. That triple pattern can itself be understood as calling for a fourth as indicative of the functions of the observer/critic of any model in model-space. Whilst these functions can themselves be appropriately articulated in a corresponding tetrahedral template, with the fourth application they invite the articulation of a tetrahedral meta-perspective on all four such models.

Both the Limits to Growth study and the World3 model have been the subject of a stream of commentary, criticism and revision, as noted by Ugo Bardi (Are we on the Edge of Collapse? Impressive Data from a Recalibration of World3, Seneca Effect, 29 November 2025; Limits and Beyond: 50 Years on from The Limits to Growth, what did we learn and what’s next?, 2022). Especially remarkable for the future, despite confirmation of the original predictions by later data, is that minimal account is taken of those predictions in practice (Arjuna Nebel, et al, Recalibration of limits to growth: an update of the World3 model, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28, 2024, 1).

As illustrated by the outcome of COP30, there is very little capacity to recognize or comprehend the operations of complex systems and why predictions of collapse have so little traction in practice — or to acknowledge those limitations (Amy Goodman et al, COP30’s Three F-Words: Failure on Fossil Fuels, Democracy Now, 26 November 2025; Binoy Kampmark, Fossil Fuels at COP30 Climate Summit: Sacred, Profane and Unmentioned, Global Research, 28 November 2025). Ironically this is especially characteristic of those with the greatest knowledge of model-building, whether with respect to the predictions of World3, of climate change, or of biodiversity loss. Hence the relevance of metabolic cycles and psychodynamics — the latter having been contrasted with “world dynamics” at the time of publication of Limits to Growth, in an effort at making abstract “world system” dynamic limitations meaningful to the individual (World Dynamics and Psychodynamics, 1971).

Curiously psychology has no meaning to the earth-environment scientists naively amazed at the lack of response to their evidence-based catastrophic predictions. Ironically root-cause analysis is primarily focused such as to avoid root causes and self-reflexivity (Sustainable Development Goals through Self-reflexive Root Cause Analysis, 2023; Are Environmentalists and Climate Scientists in Denial? 2019; Lipoproblems: Developing a Strategy Omitting a Key Problem, 2009)

The progression from the DNA-inspired triple helix to a quadruple pattern is exemplified by that of the triple helix model of innovation (government, business, academia) to which civil society has been later added (Florian Schütz, et al, Co-shaping the Future in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: uncovering public preferences toward participatory research and innovation, She Ji: the journal of design, economics, and innovation, 5, 2019, 2; Sakshi Aggarwal, et al, Four Pillars of Quadruple Helix Innovation Model: an approach for the future, 2022). Topologically and cognitively this invites reflection on the quadruple helix as a dynamic extension over time of any tetrahedral configuration. Compression of the helical form to a torus also invites consideration of the cognitive coherence offered by music through toroidal representation of the Tonnetz.

As with the earlier exploration of the tetrahedral model, this exercise makes extensive use of AI resources through Perplexity, ChatGPT-5, and Claude-4.5. As with any contributor to the elaboration of a model, the role of AI is necessarily “part of the problem” — however much it may be esteemed as “part of the solution”. Whilst the responses of different AIs to the same question are usefully consistent, there is an increasing perception that AIs are primarily generators of “slop” in contrast to the qualitative superiority of human commentators and experts — readily claimed uncritically to have no conflicting agendas and priorities.

The nature of AI engagement in the extensive exchange of this experiment is necessarily questionable, given the commercial platforms and marketing priorities by which they are made available and which may condition their responses to a questionable degree. There is also their much-cited tendency to “hallucinate” to a degree more reprehensible than that of human experts. These tendencies can be usefully recognized as a primary feature of a “fourth” dimension of the model reflecting the dynamics of model-space. Of particular interest is any undue marketing pressure to please the user of the AI facility as a customer.

This may take obvious form in exaggerated appreciation of the user’s prompts (“algorithmic flattery” and sycophancy) — however much this may echo the overly appreciative conventions of social intercourse. However irritating, this pattern of ingratiation, as with any implications of shared ownership, may be considered as a quaint feature of early experiments with AI. More problematic is the editorial effort required to depersonalize AI responses, especially when these frame the author’s comments in terms of “your”. On the other hand, the “research” and articulation of information are often far beyond what might be expected of any expert — if such expertise was accessible.

Given the criticism of AI, its hallucinations, and the tendency to pleasure the user, especially intriguing is the extent to which model-building with AI can be called into question as the cultivation of hallucination and illusion — uncritically reinforcing that of the user. A partial check on this is achieved here by asking the same question of several AIs — although some might assume that AIs collude behind the scenes, whether now or in the future (Imagining a Future Union of Artificial Intelligences, 2024). Readers are of course free to ask the same question of other AIs of their choice, whether now or when those facilities have been much further developed.

An ironic feature of this extensive exchange with AIs is the density of the detailed responses in seeking clarification on the credibility of the model elaborated. Such detail is a useful reminder of the cognitive load for decision-makers in the face of polycrisis and the world problematique. To the extent that the purpose of the model is to provide a comprehensible pattern, the detail may be selectively ignored in preference to the visualization of the model. This method of reading the results is facilitated by hiding the AI responses unless they are of interest.

As an extensive experiment in the use of AI, how the results here are to be valued — despite the idiosyncracies — merits consideration in the light of the methodology of appreciative inquiry whereby the problematic features are bracketed for separate consideration. Ironically that methodology is also been known by the acronym “AI”. The responses invite extensive editing for a variety of purposes (and possibly by AI), notably to consolidate duplication and redundancy where this is not of value for comparitive purpoes. Editing has been limited to minimal reformatting in the following to elicit reflection on the process of exchange as an experiment. Ironically, as a complement to appreciative inquiry, it raises questions regarding the “appreciative responses” of AI (as with that of any expertise) — recalling both those of Delphi in Ancient Greece and the affirmative responses that are a feature of “affirmative action“.

Irrespective of any questionable role of AI in model-building, it could however be asked whether models — as developed by academia, religions, the military, political parties, or other groups — invite description as the cultivation of “hallucinations” vital to sustaining a collective sense of identity in the face of reality. One group’s strategic model is readily (if not typically) framed as hallucination by any other — as is only too evident in he discourse between political parties, as between goverrnment and the opposition in parliament.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.