Hello, this is a followup to this thread on the P systems.
I'm very excited to share this with you all. The contents I'm about to share are extrapolated from direct testimonies, both publicly and privately shared with me, from vultologically corresponding individuals. This is not something I came up with, but is what I see as the monistic essence of what they independently convey. Humans struggle to be aware of how their own mind processes information, and so each person describes the phenomenon differently. But when we triangulate across enough people, we can see the essence that is affecting all of them and from which their thoughts arise. I feel confident enough now to say that the following definition will likely remained unchanged and be the key definitions in Model 2.
It is important to note that the P systems are information archiving/structuring systems. What we are looking at here is therefore not content (images/data/facts/etc), but the encryption, or encoding, of that content. These are the structures of data encoding that I see explained by the corresponding samples:
The Ni/Se oscillation can be described as Vortical (V) in its information architecture. The GIF above is a graphical representation of this data structure. In the last thread I described V as a process wherein "The current location is fixed in its parameters, but the dimensions are continuous, or non-local. Even though I am exactly where I am right now, I am in multiple dimensions at once, “exactly” there, in each one." We can think of the central point of the vortex (torus) above as V+, and the expanding lines as V-. The lines each form cycles so that at any temporal location, V+ is along a certain path of a V- line, and it will inevitable come back around to a full rotation.
As far as I can tell, this information structure covers all of the main motifs that have been described to me by V users over many years. Some have described their perception to me as a tunnel like so:
These are described as intrusions from the psyche, not imaginations. That is to say, they are not conjured up voluntarily, but manifest spontaneously in consciousness. We also know these from V- Carl Jung, who wrote extensively on mandalas.
He believed mandalas were, in some sense, representative of the structure of the archetypes and the psyche overall. A few quotes from him:
"I believe, the word “archetype” is thoroughly characteristic of the structural forms that underlie consciousness as the crystal lattice underlies the crystallization process."
"It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the center. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the center, to individuation."
"I sketched every morning in a notebook a small circular drawing, a mandala, which seemed to correspond to my inner situation at the time"
At other times it's been described by V types as a spiral, a cycle and also as a web. And what do you get when you combine a tunnel, with a spiral, with a cycle, with a web and a kaleidescopic mandala? The vortex above captures all of this, as it is simultaneously a tunnel, spiral, web, cycle, mandala -- with each facet describing a different point of focus of the same structure. This vortex is depicted in three dimensions, but as discussed in this thread, the total dimensionality of it in the human psyche is incalculable.
Cycling / Fatalism
Since V sees the present as laced within a thematic, cyclic geodesic, one of the effects of this Vortical data structure is the proclivity toward cycling. The vortex is cycling, and through it events will seem to be at a certain stage within a wheel that will come back around. This phenomenon explains both the V type's karmic inclinations, as well as esotericism that focuses heavily on symbols such as the Ouroborus. While it may be true that the Ouroborus symbol is a universal archetypal truth, like with so many things in life, it's those types that are most attuned to see it that end up describing it most frequently.
Another effect of this data structure is fatalism. If the vortex is going to come back around, then there may be a sense of what is imminent, inevitable or inescapable. There's a tendency to ask for the other side of the story. Phrases like "every light has a shadow" and "every tree has its roots" are similar to saying "everything comes with a price" or "what's the dark side of this idea." This also explains the V- inclination, when in an unhealthy psyche, toward conspiratorial thought because there is a sense that the whole 'cycle' is not completely in sight. And that which is not presently 'visible' (i.e. in the middle of the vortex) is no less real in the spatiotemprally absolute view. Because the entire vortex is the full perceptual reality.
Convergence / Synchronicity
Another effect of this data structure is the inclination to see the present [positional actuality] as the convergent point of these geodesics, as if the present was a gravity well that has pulled everything into this moment. This, I believe, is partly responsible for an over-representation of synchronous thought in V types (although I know this takes a biotic inclination as well, which adds 'meaningfulness' to the convergences).
There are more emergent effects than these, but this covers some of the main ones I've seen. These effects are outgrowths of the information structure that V types possess. This doesn't mean a V type is destined to buy into these ideas, but their P System's "data encryption style", per se, would lend to their data taking on concepts that are isomorphic to this structure.
The other data structure that we know of is a Modular (M) one. Once again I extract this from direct observation and testimony of how Ne/Si types structure their information. I don't have one illustration that captures this all completely [I'm still looking for the perfect one] but I'll use a few for now:
The proper image would have the expansion of the top GIF, but with the recombinations of the bottom two photos during expansion. It would show successive generations of combinations growing outward indefinitely. Not too dissimilar to this:
What we see in this structure is that everything from the past is preserved in the present, but always recombined. Note that the arrow of time is not looped like in the Vortical data structure. Instead, every new moment shuffles parts of the past in novel ways that create a permanent divergence from where they came. The same moment never appears twice. And there is also no clear path as to what still lies ahead.
Recombination / Shuffling
One of the effects of this that we see is the tendency for M to shuffle information into new arrangements. Unlike the Vortical data structure, where data is tied to geodesics, the data structure of M can freely recombine or switch trajectories. This causes effects like "Indiscriminate Correlation" and Parodies -- where parodies recombine elements of different datasets together to amalgamate a new scene.
Exponentiality / Emergentism
Another effect of this data structure is an exponential bifurcation. As each successive generation of data is recombined or split, it creates a situation where complexity increases. To use an example close to home, we can see this in effects like TeSi Dave Power's 512 subtypes system, my own 1024 resolution system, or FeSi C.S. Joseph's wild system where each person is all 16 types, in some combination. It's easy to tack on another bifurcation, and exponentially multiply complexity.
And this also leads to an unknown future trajectory. By contrast, the Vortical data structure loops back around, and in that sense it has a finite planar size. We can think of this as the difference between a closed universe (V) or an open universe (M), although I'm borrowing this distinction as a metaphor for the psyche - independent of specific cosmological views.
Totems / Anchoring
Now M- (Si) might perceive the repetition of past into future, but since M- is a discontinous process, it will only see that parity between the past and future if there's a high level of specific (S) fidelity between the two. As soon as the future does not literally resemble the past, M- will sense "this is not what it used to be" and then come to exist in a new reality of unhinged, uncharted possibility (M+). This is actually what contributes to M-'s greater tendency toward preserving totems. This sense that the literal past will be lost so easily leads to a stronger focus on anchoring, and not letting go of specific mental or physical objects. All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels "lost" because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.
Both of these data structures are capable of synthesizing any idea or concept, but they'll encode it differently. And I believe there are objective ways -- even outside of vultology -- that we can identify what sort of encoding a person's perceptual system is using.
I'm so happy to finally put this into more succinct language. I do feel that this is the essence of the structural differences between the two data structures, which then propagate into countless specific life situations. And we now have proper terms for what V and M stand for.
Do let me know if this seems clear. This is a rather technical topic, so I know that elaboration may be needed. Please feel free to ask any questions, and I'll try my best to answer them.
This is so true, that it gave me chills. I've actually been going through a bit of V style catastrophizing recently regarding current events and the pattern I kept thinking was emerging. This helps explain what I've been doing. This explanation has made a few things click into place. Like, I can't believe I never connected the word "archetype" to the V axis before, even though I always insisted that when I hear new information, such as a new concept, I want to know *what kind of thing* it is at its essence.
I was speculating that the minds of V and M users store information as impressions and memories differently, but it does also have to do with whether it involves feelings / the biotic.
The M part isn't fully clear to me. It would be interesting if I could really grasp the essence of this part:
All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels “lost” because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.
to get a sense for how people with M- (Si) experience nostalgia differently than the way I do.
@janie - I was attempting to explain my M experience of nostalgia to my partner last night, so let me give it a shot here.
All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels “lost” because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.
The most succinct way I can express the sensation of being unable to re-experience specific, irretrievably beautiful moments is through a poem I wrote recently:
====Having walked the same path, if the clock kept its place, could====
Our bodies’ tomorrow
precisely the wind
together, and again
I was walking a path near my house one day, and there was this perfect formation of clouds that resembled a sonogram in the sky, and I had an overwhelming urge to be birthed together with that cloud in the same place, at the same time, as soon as tomorrow. And yet I knew it couldn't be so, and a melancholy and wistful feeling which was not totally unpleasant crept over me.
Thank you for sharing @rua. Yes, that is very different than for me. Yours is so poetic and symbolic; and mine are so literal, I'm not even sure which if any of them can truly be called "nostalgia." For example, sometimes when I see little kids, especially girls, I will get a flashback memory of having had the same shoes or article of clothing, or maybe it's the way they're sitting on a slide or swing, and I'll remember what it was like to have that kind of perspective, how fresh things seemed, how big things seemed, how big time seemed.
It's true, though, sometimes, including when I feel particularly moved by a piece of music or something else, I feel a sense that it just sort of exists, almost eternally, in the sense of the Greek roots of the word outside of + time. Other times, when I sense what is going to happen in the future, it's not even like it's *going to happen*, more like it's already happened, or is happening "now", in the sense that time is "flat" outside of the perception I (we) are stuck in (that it's moving at a constant speed in a constant direction), which is actually an illusion.
^^To add something further as a contrast: songs and smells are the stimuli that most often trigger a sense of being back at a certain era or state of mind I existed in years ago. It can be a song I've heard before, maybe even 20 times, and yet on the 21st listen, if present conditions have primed it somehow, a feeling of being synchronized with that time comes over me. And when this sensation happens, it doesn't trigger a specific memory, it's more like a grouping of thoughts and feelings I once experienced separately that have conglomerated to form a unified mental atmosphere. Often it's a very pleasant feeling; it used to cause at least a tinge of wistfulness for me, but most of the time it happens now it just feels nice. If it's a stimulus that triggers the feeling of being back in a space I don't want to go back to, dissociation happens autonomically for me, but I don't think that has much to do with M.
There are also specific anchoring memories I can access. They are highly detailed and very spatial/positional, and the ones I can access this way don't change. I'll have a sense that I am exactly where my body was at that specific point in time, and everything is visually freeze-framed. And around this memory there will be a nebulous sense of the era in which it took place, of the chunk of time that surrounds the anchoring spot, and the vague character of that time period, but nothing specific unless I actively try to remember more. Then I can come up with the rituals first, like recreating the route I took from school, or the most common sequence of habits I followed in a day (this is all largely visual). The last things I remember when working from the anchor point are the most poignant and emotional scenes of that time period.
It’s true, though, sometimes, including when I feel particularly moved by a piece of music or something else, I feel a sense that it just sort of exists, almost eternally, in the sense of the Greek roots of the word outside of + time. Other times, when I sense what is going to happen in the future, it’s not even like it’s *going to happen*, more like it’s already happened, or is happening “now”, in the sense that time is “flat” outside of the perception I (we) are stuck in (that it’s moving at a constant speed in a constant direction), which is actually an illusion.
I definitely don't experience this, but it sounds really interesting! I very much have the sense that time as I can perceive it in a standard state of consciousness is moving forward linearly, that patterns and cycles repeat and play themselves out with new agents and variables; I don't sense anything timeless in this process, quite the opposite. What I can envision are the most probable future timelines I generate from my understanding of history: how what has come before interacts with the movements of the current variables and processes I perceive. When I have an overwhelming sense or vision of a specific future which will occur, there is no sense that it's already happened, just a resignation that it's the end effect of all the dominoes that came before it, and of those yet to be placed, with only a fraction of a chance of not occurring because I misjudged or was incapable of perceiving or predicting the dominoes placed between now and the event.
EDIT: Frank Herbert's first Dune novel is very much concerned with an M user's exploration of prescience, of the way in which every preceding event can lead to an inevitable outcome, and of the way one's actions leave the realm of personal control and spiral outward towards a singular and terrible purpose. Later novels in the series begin to chip away at this idea of inevitability, and posit that prescience in fact creates and chooses the very future it claims to predict by only displaying one or a few paths that suit the person navigating the unfathomable complexity of the universe. In my youth the idea that my actions, no matter how good or well-intentioned they might be at present, could spiral into something intensely negative later down the line used to cause me a great deal of distress (especially as it related to other people's welfare).
When I started reading the section on M I didn't feel like it fit me. The more I read the more I started understand how it does though.
Though I think I may be developing my Si/M-, I realize how I haven't been using it as much. When playing any sort of game where I can generate statistics of my play I tend to create spreadsheets to guide my game choices. These spreadsheets inevitably grow extremely complex as I constantly return to them and come up with new statistics that I find helpful in the moment or try to adjust for more helpful correlations between statistics. Eventually I hit a point where they are horrifying to look at and no stranger could make sense of them, at which time I unceremoniously make a brand new, simpler spreadsheet and begin the process anew.
This is representative of my creative processes in general. I don't tend to have totems, and the moment I feel things stagnating (I perceive too much fidelity between the future and past) I tend to destroy or abandon what I have in pursuit of a new start.
I think this is a more coherent description of the P functions, however not that different from what you've said before. It's more in-depth though, more complete of an idea which is great! 🙂
That said, having studied archetypal psychology in-depth and spoken to many people about their archetypal experiences (both V and M types), I don't think it should be extrapolated that Jung was describing the vortical nature of his perception functions when speaking of the mandala. I'm convinced he was speaking of something else, something more on the level of primordial imagery. Archetypes seem to be something truly universal, at a deeper level than the cognitive functions. Really they are the symbolization, the abstraction, of our instincts and other long-standing interpretations of our intuitional sensing of reality. This is why Jung compares the propagation of the archetypal structures to crystal formation, like a crystal growing from microscopic seeds the ultimate form of the unconscious mind is determined by apparently invisible impetuses which manifest as emotional complexes/images to our conscious mind.
The mandala in particular seemed to represent to Jung the kind of self-similar, symmetrical form of the association between the Archetypes. He wrote about the rose windows in churches being especially accurate representations of the psyche because they usually premiered Christ - a character of the Self - at the center, surrounded by concentric rings of other characters including Spirit, Messengers, Mother, Father, Deciples, Adversaries and often portraying a narrative such as the Birth of the Hero or Death and Resurrection.
The way I've come to see it, and I think Jung was eluding to this in comparing the psyche to a physical 3D crystal, is that the Self is our closest approximation of our entire experience, i.e. all the causality of our biology and the greater world. This includes subliminal awareness not only of every chemical change in every one of our cells, but that expansive awareness which connects us to the state of every other living thing on planet earth and to the timeless sense of past and future. In his Red Book Jung says the Self is the closest thing to 'the God', which I've interpreted to mean 'the whole of Nature and its proper causality'. Every other archetype springs from the Self, i.e. every instinctual constallation is an inevitable result of our fundamental nature. This is why the mandala seemed such a perfect representation of the psyche to Jung, with Self at center perpetuating the characters and narratives of survival and life events. But he didn't just come up with this idea either, his obsession with mandalas came from years of witnessing them emerge spontaneously to mean similar things in his patients, and indeed in historical art. The mandala is an archetypal symbol, a shorthand the unconscious/body/nervous system generates to express its tendencies and movement to the conscious mind.
I've seen mandalas many times in dreams and visions and interpreted them, and you know I'm definitely Ne! ;p
@alerith - Thanks!
As for Jung's view-- I somewhat agree. I think a lot of Jung's ideas have to be translated to modern scientific language in order to be understood or refined. I don't often take Jung's testimony on things as more than a well educated guess, but one that nonetheless has to be confirmed. In support of his ideas, I find that the human cell in general does operate as a crystal formation. Here's an amazing scene I came across recently from this video:
^ This is cell division happening in an Alpine Newt, which apparently grow in transparent sacks, so we can see the whole thing. One becomes two, then that becomes four, then eight, etc. I find it to be structurally very similar to:
Now, I think that cell division in our neurons likely follows the same logic, and forms the structure of our brain symmetrically. As mapped by the human connectome project, the brain is a 3D lattice structure of neural connections (notwithstanding some topological curvature). And this speaks to this algorithmic extrapolation of neurons, likely from a relatively simple equation.
The brain is algorithmically created, unfolding like a fractal out of a zygote, just like the rest of the body. It's no wonder, then, that human consciousness should have an intuition about its own Self/Totality as being a sort of fractal mandala. That is, in the structural sense, true imo. Isn't this incredible?! So, Jung was right in that sense, I think.
So, I personally don't think Jung was wrong about mandalas being representative of the totality of the Self, but I think he was more predisposed to catch onto that truth because it has more parity to his vortical thought process. It's like how Te physicists are more predisposed to catch onto mechanistic world truths, even though they apply to Fe users and everyone as well. Universal truths are still more likely to be uncovered by people whose mental operations have greater parity to those truths, because their intuitions about reality are more matched to that specific domain of reality. That's mainly what I meant. 🙂 I don't mean to say mandalas are an exclusively V experience.
Having said that, I think the Self is different in different people, so that 'the God' is different in an NiFe and in an NeFi, for instance. And this is because this algorithm -- as well as its unfurling -- is different within different biological agents. I would imagine the cognitive mandalas of V and M types would be different, because V and M are structurally different. I didn't manage to capture this in the GIF above, but the M structure also unfurls from a center... but perhaps it does so in a more idiosyncratic format, and it has more tangential bifurcations and asymmetrical recombinations. I would expect this to also manifest in the psychoanalytical practice - and I suspect this is testable. For example the internal archetypal constitution of an M type may be more modular and local to them, just the way life for an M type in general is much more modular and hodgepodged according to a very specific historical and combinatory development (re: emergentism). The interior of V types may be more prone to follow the same trends, because there's less localization of data. I could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis atm. 🙂
_ _ _
edit: And I think this is part of why I suspect V types would see things more prototypically 'archetypally' (if by that we mean thematically homo rather than hetero). Archetypes rely on thematic uniformity, which V has more proclivity towards. I think the linearity of V makes it more inclined to explain more phenomena with fewer trendlines, so that it converges information together into meta-themes/trends/cycles like archetypes much more neatly and symmetrically. So I think V types may be prone to over-emphasize the thematic sameness of information across long spatiotemporal ranges.
The Vortical system, imho, might be looking as a modular "Mandelbrot" set, which is an ever looping structure, equal to your Vortical. What the images do not show, is growth and learning of the V set, which exist in the M.
Imho, imagine the V storing inside the, pattern? Expanding itself and storing within? And with it growing, expanding, learning, changing a bit?
Might be a better way to explain growth and learning. Since both V and M both got a memory system equally well capable of figuring out things. If it was Ni vs Ne static vs learning, would be ok. But... We compare Se vs Ne too, so to say, to use old jargon.
I am still not totally sure if this is exactly the best way to explain my, impression, thought the models is a bit more complex than first impressions, if I understand what you write about, with the Vortex mandala.
Heya @starshade !
Good question. I walk through a more in-depth explanation of the acquisition of new information via either V or M in the powerpoint slideshows in this thread: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/a-computational-metaphor-pt-2-v-m/
Here are the links:
You're absolutely right that V and M both learn. The manner in which the information structure is expanded is different between the two. I think you might find this post particularly interesting, as it has visual diagrams depicting the appending of new information. Essentially, for V you can think of it as a thread with beads, and new beads are added to the threads, thus growing the chain while the threads keep much of the same cyclical structure. Hope that makes sense?
Hi! I really like this. I have thought to myself many times before about how life takes on many cycles, and how we all are going through many cycles within ourselves as we go through our lives. There are productive times and unproductive times, frantic times and very slow times, good times and bad. It has brought me much comfort to know when I am in hard times that good times will come around again. It brings some awareness of my present joy, too, in the good times to know that they are temporary. It is interesting to know that not everyone experiences life this way, as this cyclical awareness has been the subject of many of my deeper learnings and realizations as I have grown through life. I would love to learn more about how the modular perspective is experienced, and how it's weight of meaning is experienced. Is it as deeply meaningful? I suppose that is where Si's nostalgia and yearning for the past comes from, the deep meaning that change brings and highlights of the past. That brings me some new perspective, and I'd love to learn more.
I would like to add my own view of Ni in contradistinction to the computational Vortical model presented here. I thought the descriptions of cyclical, spiral, and tunnel were descriptions not of Ni, but of Ni processing Se experiences, which as a Pi function is to reprocess experiences (that is why memory is so important)but it's not Ni "globe" itself. The mandala seems to me a mixing of Ni and Ti imagery (because of Ti's crystallization) and Jung had Ni-Ti and he thought the mandalas where representative of his psyche, which we know is Ni-Ti 😆. Web description sounds like someone with Ne-Si describing their Ni (meaning, they don't have Ni and they aer just describing their Ne-Si).
Ni looks to me more like a globe with a sea of refracting, reflecting, waving imagery; a small globe of playing a clip of imagery of an "experience" is Se data, I see it coming to the globe to be integrated; deep within the sea of the Ni globe, the small globe is "composited" with similar "experiences" ("aspects" of the whole big globe) (in a cyclical (or spiral, if you add "time") fashion, meaning it's reprocessed again and again and again). As the small globe of experience is integrated with other experiences it looses it's "globe" boundary, and disperses into the big sea of imagery of the big Ni globe.
Formally, I would say this happens in a way that is illogical. Computationally, you would have to have a kind of probability based fuzzy logic, where it is possible a unit "becomes" more than unit, it "becomes" a "whole," fractals can be used for this, if we can reverse engineer it: "A self-similar object is one whose component parts resemble the whole;" now if we can do it such that we can assimilate a unit to a whole's component parts AND the whole assimilates to the unit's component parts AND do this while the whole is in a sea of fractal flux, that would solve our computational problem 😆 . I think that would happen during the cyclical processing stages and the whole memory system would have to have probability based fuzzy logic running it, meaning it be pretty unstable every time, making "guesses" about its "wholeness" as a data structure every time (I'm uncertain about what "every time" means, it could be every second or every minute) . I guess you could really slow this down so that cyclical processing of a unit into its/a whole and what that whole is could be really, really slowed down and it can be more therefore be more stable at the cost of time to see it changing.
I don't know how to write this notationally, I would have to look more into fractals.
@auburn, It differs from your vortical model because it looks like your V+ points are causally linked, keeping their V+ data integrity outside of the "wormhole" vortex, which makes them conjunct into V- lines which also look causal, creating a cycle of causally linked objects except when they are in the wormhole and reach a state of unity. However, I see the state of unity in Ni as a whole in it's data structure, V+ would need to assimilate to V- and V- would need to assimilate to V+ and the "links" connecting processed V+ data, would need to be in flux. It would have to look like links broken and reconnected and V+ data "undulating" (appearing and disappearing). You would also have to name V+ data to indicate they are dispersed in different parts of the globe. V+1 connected to V+356 on one part of the globe and V+1 connected or disconnecting to V+34 on another side of the globe (or to simplify, V+N and V+(N+1) to signify an infinite amount of V+ experience/data). The whole globe and its data dynamics would be V-. And notation to signify assimilation, connection, disconnection like dots and lines could be used.
Thas it. Let me know what you think.
I like your thoughts on this! I think I actually wholly agree with you in principle, and consider the diagram of the OP to be a simplification. Yet, a necessary premise to start from.
The good thing about mathematics and computation is that infinite complexity can be theoretically modeled, despite our limited ability to really grasp the numbers. With the right math descriptions, something like V+356 can come out of the calculation, and the full complexity of the mind can be approximated through exponential complexity. Fractals are similar, in that they create infinite complexity through a finite set of rules. I believe this must be true of our consciousness also, and we can attempt to write code which is itself unfathomable when played out.
Anyhow, I only briefly touch on this in this section of the site, titled multi-dimensionality, and I gotta flesh the idea out more, but it's a similar idea. With diagrams like the ones in the OP, I am restricted to 3 dimensions, and the lines seem to follow very discrete linear paths like you said. But the way I actually envision this existing is in countless dimensions (where a dimension is 1 context/framing/landscape). There's no way to model this, but just to do a better job than the OP we can imagine this:
^ Here we have multiple dimensional planes spiraling into the vortex at once, and you can imagine for instance that the vortex makes plane one (V-1) intersect with plane sixty-six (V-66) at point 45 (V+45). Here, V+ would be the place where different V- layers intersect, and if we introduce undulation as you suggested, the exact nature of these intersections would be non-linear. Perhaps as the planes undulate, out there in V- metaspace, some of the planes intersect (not just at the V+ wormhole). In that case, you have V- doing planar connections introspectively, weaving together a wider worldview tapestry reactively.
The velocity of the different planes can also vary, so that we don't exactly know what will intersect with what, at any given moment --- giving the perception of the non-causal/irrational. And YET... I would propose that certain axioms are never violated within this framework. Even though the exact intersections may not be known ahead of time, or their timing, their recurrence is felt with a level of inevitability. The fact of the re-processing, the re-cycling, remains. Some way or another, nevermind not knowing how, things will circle back around (re: karma, or cosmic cycles, etc).
It seems to me like part of the life-obsession of many V types is to try to become experts and shamans at reading the cycles, in a very multi-variable reality, where a lot of different cycles are intersecting all the time. And a savant/guru would be one who can read the vortical cycles with high fidelity, and anticipate their timing, shapes and forms.