- Home
- Materials
- Methodological Foundations of the Series
- Introduction to the Series
- Living Systems
- Structural Dynamics of the Evolution
- Animal Magnetism
- Territories and Landscapes
- Cultural Systems
- Shamanic Practices of North America
- Religious Systems
- SSIFS: Hybrid Information-Field Systems
- Digital Environments
- Economic Systems
- Spatiotemporal Logic of Structural Systems
- Conclusion of the Article Series
- Learning
- Blog
- About us
- Contacts
- English
5. Living Systems as Self-Calibrating Structural Configurations
5.1. Abstract
This article proposes a structural analysis of living systems within the framework of An Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, in which life is interpreted not as an ontological rupture or the introduction of a new principle of control, but as a particular case of stable subjectless configurations. It is shown that living systems constitute distributed structures lacking a center of control and do not possess a subject as a source of goal-setting or regulation.
Life is described as a regime of self-calibration that maintains structural stability through continuous flows of matter, energy, and interaction. Self-calibration is treated as a non-teleological process based on the continuous correction of misalignments, which function not as defects but as necessary conditions for dynamics and adaptability. The concept of background micro-instability and limited variability in living systems is introduced, determined by the configuration of structural imprints and environmental conditions.
Special attention is given to the “imprint–subject” linkage, in which the subject is interpreted as a realization of a previously formed structural configuration rather than its source. The stages of co-existence between imprint and subject are examined, as well as the transition of a structural imprint into an archived state after the loss of active support. It is shown that living systems are not autonomous in a strict sense and are inseparable from environmental structures.
These conclusions form a conceptual bridge to the subsequent analysis of animal, territorial, and cultural configurations addressed in the following articles of the series.
5.2. Introduction:
Life as a Continuation of Structural Logic
The emergence of living systems is often treated as a qualitative rupture in the description of complex structures—as the appearance of a new ontological level requiring special explanatory models. Within the Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, a different perspective is proposed: living systems are considered a particular case of stable structural configurations rather than an exception to the general logic of subjectless systems.
Life, in this context, does not introduce a new principle of control, goal-setting, or subjective regulation. It represents a form of structural stability maintained by continuous flows of matter, energy, and interaction embedded within an already existing configuration of imprints.
5.3. Living Systems and Subjectlessness
5.3.1. Absence of a Center of Control
Despite their apparent integrity and coherence of behavior, living systems do not possess a single center of control. None of their subsystems—including neural, hormonal, or regulatory circuits—performs the function of a subject exercising complete control over the system as a whole.
Regulation in living systems is distributed and implemented through multiple interacting circuits. Self-regulation in this sense is not equivalent to control and does not imply the existence of a governing agent. This makes it possible to regard living systems as subjectless structures despite their complexity and adaptability.
5.3.2. Living Systems as Distributed Configurations
Living systems represent distributed configurations in which stability is achieved not through centralized control, but through the coherence of multiple local processes. Each of these subsystems operates within limited conditions and lacks access to the system’s global dynamics.
Such distribution precludes the possibility of total control and makes the stability of living systems dependent on the coherence of structural imprints and current environmental conditions.
5.4. The “Imprint–Subject” Linkage in Living Systems
5.4.1. Pre-Formation of the Structural Imprint
Within the proposed approach, the structural imprint is formed prior to the emergence of a subject, if the system’s dynamics allow for such emergence. Through stable changes, the system prepares a configuration in which the existence of a living subject becomes possible.
The subject is not the source of the imprint, but its material realization. This position fundamentally distinguishes the proposed model from views in which the organism is treated as the primary agent of structural formation.
5.4.2. Co-Existence of Imprint and Subject
During the existence of a living system, the imprint and the subject form a coupled configuration, exerting mutual influence on one another. The subject maintains the imprint’s activity through metabolic and behavioral processes, while the imprint defines the boundaries of permissible states and functional regimes of the subject.
This relationship does not imply symmetry or control. It represents a dynamic coordination in which stability is achieved through continuous adjustment and compensation of misalignments.
5.4.3. Archiving of the Imprint
After the disappearance of the subject, the structural imprint typically loses its active state and transitions into an archived condition. It persists as an element of the environment’s structural memory but is no longer supported by the flows of matter and energy required for active reproduction.
Archiving does not imply complete disappearance. Under certain conditions, such archived structures may exert indirect influence on subsequent system configurations.
5.5. Self-Calibration as a Mode of Existence
5.5.1. Self-Calibration Without Goal-Setting
A key feature of living systems is self-calibration—the process of maintaining coherence between internal states and external conditions without reference to goals or intentions. Self-calibration is not directed toward optimization and does not evaluate outcomes in terms of success or failure.
It constitutes a continuous corrective process that preserves structural integrity under changing conditions.
5.5.2. Self-Calibration and Persistent Misalignments
Self-calibration does not eliminate misalignments entirely. On the contrary, persistent misalignments are the normal condition of living systems. It is precisely these misalignments that provide dynamism, adaptability, and the capacity for restructuring.
Any attempt to eliminate misalignments completely would result in the loss of flexibility and a reduction in system stability.
5.6. Micronon-Stability in Living Systems
5.6.1. Background Non-Stability
Living systems never reach a state of complete equilibrium. Even under stable conditions, they retain background micronon-stability expressed in continuous oscillations, variations, and local shifts of state.
This micronon-stability is not a sign of malfunction, but a structural condition of living systems’ existence.
5.6.2. Limited Variability
Despite the presence of micronon-stability, the variability of living systems remains limited. Permissible changes are determined by the configuration of structural imprints and environmental conditions. Living systems are not free in their choice of trajectories and do not exhibit arbitrary variability.
5.7. Limits of Autonomy in Living Systems
5.7.1. Impossibility of Isolation
Living systems are not autonomous in a strict sense. Their existence is impossible outside an environment containing structural imprints and flows of matter and energy.
Attempts at complete isolation lead to loss of calibration and destruction of stability.
5.7.2. Living Systems as a Transition to Environmental Structures
The consideration of living systems within this approach prepares the transition to the analysis of territories, landscapes, and cultural formations. Living systems are not opposed to the environment but are woven into it as elements of a broader structural configuration.
5.8. Summary and Transition
5.8.1. Concluding Propositions
Within the Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, living systems are understood as self-calibrating structural configurations that do not violate the subjectless model of complex systems. Their stability, dynamics, and limitations are fully consistent with the principles introduced earlier in the series.
This article proposes a structural analysis of living systems within the framework of An Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, in which life is interpreted not as an ontological rupture or the introduction of a new principle of control, but as a particular case of stable subjectless configurations. It is shown that living systems constitute distributed structures lacking a center of control and do not possess a subject as a source of goal-setting or regulation.
Life is described as a regime of self-calibration that maintains structural stability through continuous flows of matter, energy, and interaction. Self-calibration is treated as a non-teleological process based on the continuous correction of misalignments, which function not as defects but as necessary conditions for dynamics and adaptability. The concept of background micro-instability and limited variability in living systems is introduced, determined by the configuration of structural imprints and environmental conditions.
Special attention is given to the “imprint–subject” linkage, in which the subject is interpreted as a realization of a previously formed structural configuration rather than its source. The stages of co-existence between imprint and subject are examined, as well as the transition of a structural imprint into an archived state after the loss of active support. It is shown that living systems are not autonomous in a strict sense and are inseparable from environmental structures.
These conclusions form a conceptual bridge to the subsequent analysis of animal, territorial, and cultural configurations addressed in the following articles of the series.
5.2. Introduction:
Life as a Continuation of Structural Logic
The emergence of living systems is often treated as a qualitative rupture in the description of complex structures—as the appearance of a new ontological level requiring special explanatory models. Within the Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, a different perspective is proposed: living systems are considered a particular case of stable structural configurations rather than an exception to the general logic of subjectless systems.
Life, in this context, does not introduce a new principle of control, goal-setting, or subjective regulation. It represents a form of structural stability maintained by continuous flows of matter, energy, and interaction embedded within an already existing configuration of imprints.
5.3. Living Systems and Subjectlessness
5.3.1. Absence of a Center of Control
Despite their apparent integrity and coherence of behavior, living systems do not possess a single center of control. None of their subsystems—including neural, hormonal, or regulatory circuits—performs the function of a subject exercising complete control over the system as a whole.
Regulation in living systems is distributed and implemented through multiple interacting circuits. Self-regulation in this sense is not equivalent to control and does not imply the existence of a governing agent. This makes it possible to regard living systems as subjectless structures despite their complexity and adaptability.
5.3.2. Living Systems as Distributed Configurations
Living systems represent distributed configurations in which stability is achieved not through centralized control, but through the coherence of multiple local processes. Each of these subsystems operates within limited conditions and lacks access to the system’s global dynamics.
Such distribution precludes the possibility of total control and makes the stability of living systems dependent on the coherence of structural imprints and current environmental conditions.
5.4. The “Imprint–Subject” Linkage in Living Systems
5.4.1. Pre-Formation of the Structural Imprint
Within the proposed approach, the structural imprint is formed prior to the emergence of a subject, if the system’s dynamics allow for such emergence. Through stable changes, the system prepares a configuration in which the existence of a living subject becomes possible.
The subject is not the source of the imprint, but its material realization. This position fundamentally distinguishes the proposed model from views in which the organism is treated as the primary agent of structural formation.
5.4.2. Co-Existence of Imprint and Subject
During the existence of a living system, the imprint and the subject form a coupled configuration, exerting mutual influence on one another. The subject maintains the imprint’s activity through metabolic and behavioral processes, while the imprint defines the boundaries of permissible states and functional regimes of the subject.
This relationship does not imply symmetry or control. It represents a dynamic coordination in which stability is achieved through continuous adjustment and compensation of misalignments.
5.4.3. Archiving of the Imprint
After the disappearance of the subject, the structural imprint typically loses its active state and transitions into an archived condition. It persists as an element of the environment’s structural memory but is no longer supported by the flows of matter and energy required for active reproduction.
Archiving does not imply complete disappearance. Under certain conditions, such archived structures may exert indirect influence on subsequent system configurations.
5.5. Self-Calibration as a Mode of Existence
5.5.1. Self-Calibration Without Goal-Setting
A key feature of living systems is self-calibration—the process of maintaining coherence between internal states and external conditions without reference to goals or intentions. Self-calibration is not directed toward optimization and does not evaluate outcomes in terms of success or failure.
It constitutes a continuous corrective process that preserves structural integrity under changing conditions.
5.5.2. Self-Calibration and Persistent Misalignments
Self-calibration does not eliminate misalignments entirely. On the contrary, persistent misalignments are the normal condition of living systems. It is precisely these misalignments that provide dynamism, adaptability, and the capacity for restructuring.
Any attempt to eliminate misalignments completely would result in the loss of flexibility and a reduction in system stability.
5.6. Micronon-Stability in Living Systems
5.6.1. Background Non-Stability
Living systems never reach a state of complete equilibrium. Even under stable conditions, they retain background micronon-stability expressed in continuous oscillations, variations, and local shifts of state.
This micronon-stability is not a sign of malfunction, but a structural condition of living systems’ existence.
5.6.2. Limited Variability
Despite the presence of micronon-stability, the variability of living systems remains limited. Permissible changes are determined by the configuration of structural imprints and environmental conditions. Living systems are not free in their choice of trajectories and do not exhibit arbitrary variability.
5.7. Limits of Autonomy in Living Systems
5.7.1. Impossibility of Isolation
Living systems are not autonomous in a strict sense. Their existence is impossible outside an environment containing structural imprints and flows of matter and energy.
Attempts at complete isolation lead to loss of calibration and destruction of stability.
5.7.2. Living Systems as a Transition to Environmental Structures
The consideration of living systems within this approach prepares the transition to the analysis of territories, landscapes, and cultural formations. Living systems are not opposed to the environment but are woven into it as elements of a broader structural configuration.
5.8. Summary and Transition
5.8.1. Concluding Propositions
Within the Approach to the Evaluation of Structural Imprints, living systems are understood as self-calibrating structural configurations that do not violate the subjectless model of complex systems. Their stability, dynamics, and limitations are fully consistent with the principles introduced earlier in the series.