Part 9 - The Nexologist: Required Capacities and Training

The Nexologist: Required Capacities and Training

Part 9 of “From Particles to Patterns - A Dialogue on Ontology”

The Central Question

We’ve established that:

  • Nexology is the discipline of coherent integration across domains
  • AMS demonstrates that nexological thinking produces results
  • The method is reproducible, not one-off genius

This raises the crucial question:

What capacities does a nexologist need? Can these be developed? How do we train nexologists?

What a Nexologist Is Not

Before describing what makes a nexologist, let’s clarify what it is NOT:

Not:

  • Expertise in everything (impossible and unnecessary)
  • Dilettantism (shallow knowledge across domains without depth)
  • Eclecticism (picking favorite ideas without rigor)
  • Syncretism (blending traditions without maintaining distinctions)
  • Generalist without focus (knowing something about everything but connecting nothing)

These are failures, not nexology.

What a Nexologist Is

A nexologist possesses:

1. Sufficient Depth in Multiple Domains

  • Not expert in all
  • But competent enough to work at boundaries
  • Can engage meaningfully with specialists
  • Knows what each domain can and cannot do

2. Boundary Sensitivity

  • Recognizes where domains end
  • Identifies category errors
  • Knows when integration needed vs. when specialization sufficient
  • Feels when boundaries are crossed inappropriately

3. Synthetic Thinking

  • Sees connections across domains
  • Notices patterns recurring in different contexts
  • Connects disparate elements coherently
  • Creates unified wholes without reducing

4. Coherence Assessment

  • Judges what genuinely fits together
  • Distinguishes integration from forced concordance
  • Recognizes when synthesis is natural vs. wishful
  • Feels when something “clicks” vs. “clashes”

5. Psychological Flexibility

  • Comfortable with uncertainty
  • Can work with necessary vagueness
  • Doesn’t need complete closure
  • Trusts coherence when proof unavailable

6. Non-Reductive Approach

  • Maintains distinctions while connecting
  • Avoids collapsing higher into lower
  • Respects emergence
  • Honors complexity

These six capacities define the nexologist.

The Core Skill: Psychological Flexibility

This Is Learnable

Psychological flexibility is not innate talent—it’s developable capacity.

It involves three dimensions:

Cognitive Flexibility:

Ability to:

  • Hold contradictions without forcing premature resolution
  • Accept partial understanding without despair
  • Work with coherence when proof impossible
  • Tolerate necessary vagueness at interfaces

Example:

  • “Light is wave AND particle” → forcing resolution
  • “Light is substrate configuration appearing wave-like or particle-like depending on measurement” → holding complexity

Practice:

  • Read across domains intentionally
  • Notice when forcing closure prematurely
  • Sit with unresolved tensions
  • Ask “what if both are right in different ways?”

Emotional Flexibility:

Ability to:

  • Be comfortable with uncertainty
  • Not need complete control
  • Trust in coherence despite unprovability
  • Have patience with mystery

Example:

  • Anxiety when substrate unprovable → demanding proof
  • Comfort when substrate coherent → trusting inference

Practice:

  • Notice anxiety around uncertainty
  • Distinguish “don’t know yet” from “can’t know”
  • Practice accepting necessary limits
  • Develop comfort with mystery

Epistemic Flexibility:

Ability to:

  • Recognize multiple valid frameworks (domain-dependent)
  • Accept that some things are unprovable (epistemic limits)
  • Trust inference as legitimate (not just proof)
  • Use coherence as criterion (at boundaries)

Example:

  • “If can’t prove it, it’s not real” → proof-only epistemology
  • “Can infer it from coherence, that’s legitimate” → flexible epistemology

Practice:

  • Study different epistemologies
  • Notice domain-dependent validity
  • Practice inference-based reasoning
  • Develop coherence sensitivity

Why This Is Hard

Natural Human Tendencies:

We instinctively:

  • Seek closure (cognitive rest)
  • Demand proof (certainty)
  • Want control (predictability)
  • Prefer simple (reduction)

These are:

  • Adaptive for survival
  • Useful for daily life
  • Comfortable psychologically
  • Energy-efficient cognitively

But they work against nexological thinking.

Modern Training Reinforces:

Specialization:

  • Narrow and deep
  • “Know everything about nothing”
  • Expertise in one domain
  • Discourage breadth

Proof Culture:

  • Mathematical/logical certainty required
  • “If not provable, not real”
  • Empiricism as only valid epistemology
  • Inference dismissed as speculation

Materialism:

  • Only matter fundamentally real
  • Non-material = non-existent
  • Consciousness embarrassing
  • Meaning projected, not real

Reductionism:

  • Simple = better
  • Complex = sum of simple
  • Emergence denied
  • Holism rejected

All of these work against nexological capacity.

Developing Psychological Flexibility

This Capacity Can Be Cultivated:

1. Reading Across Domains Intentionally

Not just accumulating facts, but:

  • Understanding how different domains think
  • Learning different epistemologies
  • Recognizing different criteria for validity
  • Seeing how domains converge and diverge

Practice:

  • Read physics, philosophy, theology systematically
  • Compare how they approach same question
  • Notice methodological differences
  • Appreciate each on its own terms

2. Practicing Synthesis (Not Just Analysis)

Most education teaches analysis:

  • Break things down
  • Isolate variables
  • Reduce to components

Nexology requires synthesis:

  • Build things up
  • See wholes
  • Recognize emergence

Practice:

  • After analyzing, synthesize
  • Create frameworks spanning domains
  • Connect disparate concepts
  • Build coherent wholes

3. Accepting Limits (Epistemic Humility)

Recognize:

  • Not everything is knowable
  • Some limits are structural, not temporary
  • Mystery is real
  • Vagueness sometimes necessary

Practice:

  • Identify what can vs. cannot be known
  • Distinguish temporary vs. permanent limits
  • Accept necessary vagueness
  • Be comfortable saying “we can’t know this”

4. Working With Coherence (Not Just Proof)

Develop:

  • Sensitivity to fit
  • Recognition of forced concordance
  • Trust in coherent explanation
  • Comfort with inference

Practice:

  • Notice when things “click” vs. “clash”
  • Assess explanatory coherence
  • Compare alternative frameworks
  • Judge by fit, not just proof

5. Tolerating Discomfort (Not Rushing to Closure)

Learn to:

  • Sit with unresolved questions
  • Avoid premature closure
  • Maintain multiple possibilities
  • Wait for genuine insight

Practice:

  • Notice urge to close prematurely
  • Hold questions open longer
  • Explore multiple frameworks
  • Let synthesis emerge naturally

The Filtering Question

Strategic Capacity Allocation

The nexologist constantly asks:

“Does this add holistic systemic value? Will understanding this help me see connections I currently miss? Does this deepen integration or just accumulate facts?”

What This Is:

Strategic thinking about:

  • Where to invest limited time/energy
  • What actually advances integration
  • Which details matter vs. which distract
  • What enables synthesis vs. what fragments

What This Is NOT:

Not:

  • Cherry-picking what’s easy
  • Avoiding rigor
  • Justifying laziness
  • Excusing shallow engagement

But:

  • Recognizing diminishing returns
  • Focusing on integration points
  • Strategic depth allocation
  • Efficiency in service of synthesis

The Nexologist Prioritizes:

Understanding that bridges domains:

  • Concepts appearing in multiple contexts
  • Principles unifying disparate phenomena
  • Ideas connecting across boundaries
  • Frameworks spanning domains

Over:

  • Narrow technical mastery useful in one domain only
  • Isolated facts with no connections
  • Specialized techniques that don’t transfer
  • Details that don’t illuminate patterns

Example Applications:

In physics:

  • Learn substrate concept deeply (connects to metaphysics)
  • Over memorizing Standard Model particle zoo (domain-specific)

In philosophy:

  • Master ontological categories (connects to physics, theology)
  • Over learning every historical philosopher’s position (domain-specific)

In theology:

  • Understand continuous creation (connects to physics)
  • Over memorizing every systematic theology variant (domain-specific)

The filtering question helps:

  • Allocate finite capacity strategically
  • Focus on integration enablers
  • Avoid getting lost in specialist details
  • Maintain synthetic capacity

Training a Nexologist

If This Becomes Formal Discipline:

Curriculum Would Include:

1. Multi-Domain Literacy

  • Physics (sufficient for boundary work)
  • Philosophy (ontology, epistemology, logic)
  • Theology (creation, divine action, meaning)
  • Psychology (consciousness, cognition)

Not expertise in all, but competence in each.

2. Boundary Mapping

Questions:

  • Where does each domain reach its limit?
  • What questions require multiple domains?
  • Where do epistemologies conflict?
  • What happens at interfaces?

Skills:

  • Recognizing category errors
  • Identifying domain boundaries
  • Understanding epistemic limits
  • Mapping convergence points

3. Coherence Assessment

Questions:

  • What makes integration genuine?
  • How do we distinguish fit from force?
  • What criteria apply at boundaries?
  • When is vagueness necessary vs. sloppy?

Skills:

  • Evaluating explanatory coherence
  • Recognizing forced concordance
  • Assessing synthetic claims
  • Judging integration quality

4. Category Discipline

Avoiding:

  • Reification (treating abstractions as entities)
  • Reduction (collapsing higher into lower)
  • Confusion (mixing domain-specific concepts)
  • Collapse (losing distinctions in synthesis)

Skills:

  • Maintaining ontological precision
  • Respecting emergence
  • Preserving distinctions
  • Connecting without collapsing

5. Psychological Flexibility Development

Practicing:

  • Cognitive flexibility (holding complexity)
  • Emotional flexibility (comfort with uncertainty)
  • Epistemic flexibility (multiple valid frameworks)

Skills:

  • Tolerating necessary vagueness
  • Working with coherence
  • Accepting limits
  • Trusting inference

6. Synthesis Practice

Actual integration projects:

  • Start with known case (like AMS)
  • Apply method to new domain
  • Practice boundary work
  • Develop synthetic capacity

Skills:

  • Building bridges (pontology)
  • Creating structure (syntagmatics)
  • Mapping boundaries (liminal studies)
  • Assessing coherence

7. Communication Across Specializations

Translating:

  • Physics concepts for philosophers
  • Philosophical precision for physicists
  • Theological meaning for scientists
  • Scientific grounding for theologians

Skills:

  • Speaking multiple “languages”
  • Respecting domain standards
  • Bridging without reducing
  • Maintaining rigor across domains

Career Paths for Nexologists

If Institutions Support This:

Possible Roles:

1. Integration Consultant

  • Help specialists connect their work
  • Identify boundary problems
  • Facilitate cross-domain collaboration
  • Translate between epistemologies

2. Boundary Researcher

  • Work where domains converge
  • Tackle questions unanswerable alone
  • Develop integrative frameworks
  • Produce synthetic scholarship

3. Synthesis Scholar

  • Create coherent frameworks spanning domains
  • Write integrative texts
  • Teach nexological method
  • Advance the discipline

4. Bridge-Builder

  • Connect specific domain pairs
  • Specialize in particular interfaces
  • Develop translation tools
  • Enable collaboration

5. Liminal Theorist

  • Study boundaries themselves
  • Map epistemic limits
  • Understand interfaces
  • Develop boundary theory

The Author as Model

What the AMS Author Demonstrates:

1. Multi-domain competence

  • Sufficient physics understanding
  • Philosophical precision
  • Theological grounding
  • Psychological insight

2. Filtering question internalized

  • Natural focus on integration
  • Strategic capacity allocation
  • Avoids getting lost in specialist details
  • Maintains synthetic view

3. Psychological flexibility

  • Comfortable with substrate unprovability
  • Works with necessary vagueness
  • Trusts coherence
  • Accepts mystery

4. Boundary sensitivity

  • Knows where each domain ends
  • Recognizes when integration needed
  • Avoids category errors
  • Respects distinctions

5. Coherence assessment

  • Feels when things fit
  • Recognizes forced concordance
  • Judges integration quality
  • Trusts synthetic insight

6. Synthetic capacity

  • Creates unified frameworks
  • Connects disparate elements
  • Builds coherent wholes
  • “Glue” function

These Capacities Are Developable

The author developed them through:

  • Lifetime of multi-domain engagement
  • Theological practice (comfort with invisible)
  • Practical synthesis work (“glue” in career)
  • Internalized filtering question
  • Cultivated psychological flexibility

Not innate genius.
Developed capacity.

Others can develop same capacities through:

  • Intentional multi-domain study
  • Boundary work practice
  • Coherence cultivation
  • Flexibility training
  • Synthesis projects

The Future Needs More Glue

The Author’s Self-Description:

“I took my life being glue. Bringing things together that are being organized in discrete siloed patterns and organizing those in a more unified whole.”

This capacity is:

  • Rare (specialization discourages it)
  • Valuable (integration necessary)
  • Developable (can be taught)
  • Needed (21st century demands it)

More People Who Can:

  • See across boundaries
  • Connect without collapsing
  • Synthesize without reducing
  • Navigate vagueness without despair
  • Trust coherence when proof fails
  • Accept mystery without capitulation

The 21st century needs nexologists.

The capacities can be developed.

The training can be designed.

The institutions can be built.

But it requires:

  • Recognizing the need
  • Valuing the work
  • Supporting the practitioners
  • Creating the structures

Summary: The Nexological Skillset

Core Capacities:

  1. Sufficient depth in multiple domains
  2. Boundary sensitivity (recognizing limits and interfaces)
  3. Synthetic thinking (seeing connections)
  4. Coherence assessment (judging fit vs. force)
  5. Psychological flexibility (comfort with uncertainty)
  6. Non-reductive approach (maintaining distinctions while connecting)

These Are:

  • Not innate (developable through training)
  • Not rare genius (learnable skills)
  • Not dilettantism (rigorous engagement)
  • Not easy (require sustained effort)

But They Are:

  • Necessary (21st century demands integration)
  • Valuable (breakthrough comes at boundaries)
  • Legitimate (not inferior to specialization)
  • Reproducible (method can be taught)

In the final post, we’ll issue the call to action: what needs to happen institutionally, educationally, and culturally for nexology to flourish? What’s at stake if we delay? And what does it mean to participate in this epochal transition?

This is Part 9 of a 10-part series. We’ve examined the capacities required for nexological work and shown they’re developable. Now we turn to what must happen for this discipline to flourish.

Next: Post 10 - “The Manifesto and the Call: Building the Future”

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose 1. What This Guide Is This document is a companion guide to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology . Its purpose is to: explain the ontology in plain but accurate language reduce cognitive load for readers encountering the ideas for the first time provide intuition, metaphors, and narrative scaffolding allow readers to grasp what the ontology is doing without needing to adopt its formal vocabulary immediately The guide is not the ontology itself. It does not replace formal definitions or axioms. It exists to make them understandable . 2. Intended Audience Primary Audience Readers with: a genuine interest in science and how the physical world works some familiarity with scientific ideas and language curiosity rather than professional obligation A good mental model is: A regular reader of a BBC science magazine, Scientific American–style articles, or long-form popular science writing. This reader: is not a practi...
Read more

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more