Sophianic metaffordance

The Sophianic principle and the dreaming of reality: an exploration of Gnosis, Gaia, consciousness, panpsychism, and the generative nature of metaffordances.

Don't be put off by all the headings. They're just short paragraphs. It's not that long.
Use browser Back Button to return to this contents menu.

The dream of Sophia

There is an ancient image in Gnostic thought that the world is somehow a dream. The traditions associated with the goddess Sophia (Wisdom), are diverse and cannot be reduced to a single doctrine. Yet across some of these traditions there is a powerful intuition: the world of ordinary experience is not the ultimate level of reality, and what appears to us as a collection of separate things has arisen through a deeper generative process.

Taken literally, such claims belong to an ancient mytho-cosmology. Taken philosophically, however, the image of Sophia's dreaming opens another possibility. Perhaps the world is dreamlike not because it is unreal, but because reality is generative. It is continually differentiating, organizing and opening possibilities for further possibilities.

This provides an unexpected meeting point with metaffordance. Ecological psychology begins with the living relation between organism and environment. Metaffordance asks how possibilities for action can themselves generate further possibilities. The Sophianic image offers a way of naming the deeper generativity that this process seems to reveal.

The Sophianic principle

The central proposition can be stated simply: the Sophianic Principle is that reality is generative, and the generation of possibilities is itself a fundamental feature of reality.

This principle does not require Sophia to be understood as a supernatural entity who literally dreams a physical universe (even if it were ontologically true). Sophia can instead be taken as a mythic image of generativity itself, of a reality whose forms are continually arising from relations among possibilities.

On this reading, the universe is not a finished stage on which organisms appear. Organisms are themselves products of the same generative reality, and their activities participate in its continuing transformation. Reality generates life, life generates new ecological relations, and those relations generate new possibilities for life.

From affordances to metaffordances

The ecological significance of this idea lies in affordances. Organisms detect information specifying possibilities for action and directly perceive affordances. Each organism encounters a world structured by the possibilities relevant to its own form of life.

But organisms do more than encounter possibilities. Through their activity they alter the environments that provide those possibilities. A living system can therefore change the very field in which subsequent perception and action occur. An affordance can lead to actions that create conditions for new affordances. This recursive capacity is the basis of the metaffordance.

Metaffordance consequently provides an ecological expression of the Sophianic Principle. If reality is generative, then one of its most important characteristics is that possibilities can become the conditions for further possibilities. The world continually exceeds its previous configuration.

Beyond mind and matter

This perspective also changes the mind-matter problem, in the same way argued at greater length in Metaffordance and the mind-matter problem: if organism and environment are aspects of a single generative process, the division between physical matter and mental experience is no longer fundamental in the way the conventional problem assumes.

Organisms are organized beings whose existence consists of ongoing relations with their environments. They detect information, directly perceive affordances and act upon the possibilities those affordances provide. There is therefore no need for a categorical boundary between conscious and unconscious organisms, only differences of organization, complexity, flexibility and recursive capacity.

The resulting view is compatible with a broad form of panpsychism, but it is more specifically ecological. Consciousness is not located in isolated things. It is associated with the living relation through which organisms engage a world of possibilities. Does a bacterium possess a tiny human mind? Of course not. But the question is what form its experience takes within its own ecological organization. It has experience and that's what counts.

Sophia and Gaia

Sophia and Gaia need not be treated as identical. Sophia can represent the generative principle, while Gaia represents a planetary expression of that generativity in the living Earth system. The distinction allows the ancient mythic image and the ecological concept to illuminate one another without collapsing them into the same thing.

Gaia is not merely a passive environment containing life. Life has transformed the atmosphere, soils, oceans and landscapes of the planet, while those transformed conditions have in turn enabled new forms of life. The Earth system is therefore recursively shaped by the organisms within it.

In this sense, Gaia can be understood as a living field of metaffordances. The possibilities available to organisms are continually altered by the activities of other organisms and by the larger planetary processes in which they participate. The dream is not static. It changes through the beings that arise within it.

The Demiurge and the world of things

Within Gnostic cosmologies, the Demiurge occupies a peculiar position. He is the creator and ruler of the material world, and from the perspective of ordinary human existence he can appear to be God himself. The world we inhabit seems to be the world he made, governed by the order he established, and humanity appears to exist within that order as its inhabitants and subjects. Yet Gnostic thought places the Demiurge below a higher reality. Beyond the material cosmos lies a transcendent fullness, the Pleroma, associated with the divine Aeons and ultimately with a source of being beyond the Demiurge himself. The Demiurge therefore possesses real creative power within the material realm, but he is not the highest principle of reality.

This creates a striking inversion of the ordinary religious picture. The God of the Abrahamic religions who appears to be the creator of everything is, from the Gnostic perspective, an imposter and a limited being who does not fully comprehend the reality beyond his own creation. His limitation is not merely a limitation of power. It is a limitation of knowledge. He mistakes his own world for the whole of reality. The material order therefore becomes something like a closed system, one whose apparent completeness conceals the greater generative reality from which it has arisen.

It is this aspect of the Demiurge that makes the figure particularly interesting from the perspective of metaffordance. The Gnostic myth can be read not only as a cosmological account but as an account of a particular way of misunderstanding reality. Rather than treating the Demiurge simply as a supernatural villain, even if such a being were understood literally, we might instead understand the figure as representing the tendency to mistake a relational and generative world for a finished collection of independent things.

The Demiurgic error is therefore a form of reification. Processes become things, relations become properties, and possibilities become fixed meanings. What is actually an unfolding field of relations comes to appear as a completed world of objects. The world seems to be already made, already ordered, and already determined, when in fact its possibilities are continually being generated through the relations between organisms and their environments.

The Sophianic alternative is therefore not escape from the material world. It is recognition of its generative character. The material world of the Demiurge is not a prison from which perception must flee. It is the changing field within which new possibilities arise.

The Archons of a generative world

In Gnostic traditions, the Archons occupy an ambiguous and often disturbing position. They are generally portrayed as cosmic powers that govern the lower material realm and stand between humanity and the fullness of divine reality. Their character is not always simply that of evil spirits in the conventional sense. They may be ignorant, arrogant, deceptive, obstructive, jealous, mischievous, or incompetent, and their power can arise precisely from their limited understanding. Their fundamental error is therefore epistemic as much as moral: they do not understand the greater reality of which they are a part, yet they impose their limited order as though it were absolute.

Archons, demons and jinn

This gives the Archons an interesting relationship to other traditions of supernatural beings. Demons in various religious traditions may represent malevolent or destructive agencies, while jinn in Islamic tradition occupy a more complex category, encompassing beings capable of good, evil, obedience, rebellion, mischief, and indifference. The comparison should not be taken as a claim that Archons, demons, and jinn are historically the same beings. They belong to different cosmologies and theological systems. What they share, at a more abstract level, is the image of agencies operating within the world that can deceive, obstruct, tempt, constrain, or misdirect human engagement with reality.

From supernatural beings to structures of constraint

The Archons therefore need not be understood exclusively as supernatural creatures. Their mythological presentation can be taken seriously while also allowing a philosophical interpretation. If reality is fundamentally generative, if possibilities continually give rise to further possibilities, then there can also be structures that inhibit this generativity. The Archons can be understood as the symbolic representation of those structures.

When constraint becomes Archontic

The distinction is important because constraint itself is not evil. Indeed, constraint is indispensable to the generation of organized possibilities. A skeleton constrains movement while making coordinated movement possible. A cell membrane constrains chemical exchange while making cellular life possible. Grammar constrains speech while making an enormous range of meaningful utterances possible. Physical constraints can likewise define the space within which events occur. Constraints can therefore be metaffordances: they can create the conditions for further possibilities.

The Archontic condition arises somewhere else. It appears when a constraint becomes self-concealing. A local organization of possibilities becomes mistaken for the structure of reality itself. What was contingent becomes necessary. What was one possible way of organizing the world becomes the only imaginable way. Possibilities remain present, but the organism can no longer detect the information that specifies them.

The Archontic field of perception

Here the traditional Gnostic image becomes remarkably close to the ecological conception of perception. The organism detects information specifying possibilities for action and directly perceives affordances. But perception is always situated within an organized field. What an organism can perceive depends not only upon the information available in the environment, but upon the organization of the organism and its history of engagement with that environment. A structure that prevents certain information from becoming available can therefore restrict the affordance landscape without physically eliminating the possibilities themselves.

The Archontic condition in everyday life

In this sense, an Archon need not be a creature sitting somewhere outside the world and deliberately preventing liberation. An Archontic process can operate within perception itself. Habit can become Archontic when it prevents alternatives from being perceived. Institutions can become Archontic when their contingent arrangements present themselves as inevitable. Ideologies can become Archontic when they make alternative possibilities difficult to detect. Technology can become Archontic when the affordances it makes salient conceal the other affordances it suppresses. Even one's own conceptual categories can become Archontic when they become so rigid that they prevent the detection of information specifying possibilities outside those categories.

The Archontic form of ignorance

This also gives a different interpretation of Gnostic ignorance. Ignorance is not simply the absence of information. It can be the inability to detect information that is already specifying possibilities in the environment. The Archontic condition is therefore not necessarily a world without possibilities. It is a world in which possibilities have become difficult to perceive.

The Archons as personifications

The traditional Gnostic Archons can consequently be read as mythological personifications of a profound feature of existence. Generative reality inevitably produces structures, and structures inevitably constrain what can happen next. The danger begins when those structures become closed upon themselves and conceal the generative process from which they arose. The Archon then becomes the guardian of an apparent necessity.

The Sophianic and Archontic

This provides a useful distinction between the Sophianic and Archontic dimensions of reality. The Sophianic Principle concerns the generation and differentiation of possibilities. The Archontic principle concerns their stabilization, restriction, concealment, and reification. Sophia generates; the Archontic order fixes. Metaffordances propagate possibilities through transformations of the organism-environment relationship; Archontic processes can close that propagation down.

Beyond good and evil

Yet the two cannot simply be divided into good and evil. The Archons themselves belong to Sophia's world. Their constraints can generate possibilities, and their apparent opposition to generativity can itself become part of a larger generative process. The problem is not constraint as such. The problem is constraint that forgets that it is constraint.

The Demiurge and the Archons

The Demiurge can therefore be understood as the figure of a world-maker who mistakes a particular order for the whole of reality, while the Archons are the powers that maintain that order. In a metaphorical formulation, the Demiurge establishes the apparent order; the Archons maintain its apparent necessity.

Gnosis and liberation

Gnosis then becomes something more subtle than escape from the material world. It is the recovery of the ability to perceive the generative character of reality from within the structures that constrain perception. The Gnostic awakening is an awakening to possibilities that had been hidden by an apparently finished world.

The Archon as anti-metaffordance

In metaffordance terms, this is perhaps the deepest meaning of the Archon. An Archon is whatever prevents an affordance from becoming visible as a source of further affordances. It interrupts the recursive movement from possibility to action, from action to transformation, and from transformation to new possibility.

Generativity and closure

The Sophianic and Archontic principles therefore describe two complementary tendencies within a generative universe. The Sophianic opens the field of possibilities; the Archontic closes it. Gnosis is the recognition that every apparent closure may itself be situated within a larger field of possibilities.

The myth as awakening

That makes the Gnostic myth much more than a story about escaping an evil material universe (as one perspective on Gnosticism suggests). It becomes a story about the difference between a world that is experienced as finished and a world that is recognized as perpetually becoming. The Archons are not necessarily external enemies standing outside Sophia's dream. They are powers, structures, and processes within the dream through which possibility can become restricted, concealed, and mistaken for necessity.

Gnosis as recognition of participation

Gnosis can consequently be understood in a new way. To awaken is not necessarily to discover that the physical world is an illusion. It may be to recognize that the apparent separation between self and world conceals a deeper relational process.

The organism is not an observer standing outside reality. It is part of the process it perceives. It detects information specifying possibilities for action and directly perceives affordances. Its actions then transform the environment, altering the conditions for subsequent perception and action.

Gnosis, in this interpretation, is recognition of participation. It is an awareness that one's own being is embedded in the same generative process that produces the world one encounters. The deeper truth is not that the world is unreal, but that it is unfinished.

The dream dreams through life

If every organism participates in this process, then Sophia's dream is not merely a dream that contains living beings. Life is one of the ways in which the generative process becomes sensitive to its own possibilities.

Every organism, at its own level, detects information and perceives affordances. Every organism acts within a field of possibilities and, through its activity, changes that field. Human beings extend this recursive capacity to an extraordinary degree. We imagine possibilities that are not immediately present, communicate them to other people, construct symbolic and technological environments, and thereby create possibilities that become available to generations that follow.

The human capacity is therefore not an exception to the Sophianic process. It is an especially powerful expression of it. The dream has produced beings capable of participating consciously and recursively in the generation of further possibilities.

Sophianic metaffordance

This perspective can be called Sophianic Metaffordance. It takes the ecological concept of metaffordance and places it within a broader generative ontology. The term does not claim that contemporary ecological psychology is secretly Gnostic, nor that ancient Gnosticism anticipated modern science. It proposes instead that the two traditions can illuminate a common philosophical intuition: reality is relational, generative and capable of opening possibilities beyond its present form.

The Sophianic Principle names the overarching ontology: reality is generative, and the generation of possibilities is itself a fundamental feature of reality. Metaffordance describes the ecological structure through which possibilities can generate further possibilities. Gaia provides an image of this generativity at the planetary level. Sophia provides the ancient image of a reality that dreams itself into differentiated form.

Metaffordance gnosis can then name the corresponding mode of knowing. It is the recognition that we do not stand outside this generative process. We perceive within it, act within it and contribute to its transformation. Knowledge is therefore not simply the construction of an internal representation of an external world. It can be a growing sensitivity to the relations and possibilities through which the world continually becomes.

Awakening within the dream

The ancient claim that we live in a dream can now be read in a different light. The world does not have to be unreal to be dreamlike. It is dreamlike because it is continually coming into being through the generation and transformation of possibilities.

Sophia does not need to dream a finished universe. The dream can be understood as the ongoing generation of worlds of possibility. Organisms arise within those worlds, perceive affordances, act upon them and transform the conditions from which further possibilities emerge.

We are therefore not merely characters inside Sophia's dream. We are among the ways in which the dream perceives, acts and generates further possibilities.

The deepest implication of metaffordance may be that reality does not merely afford action. Reality affords the generation of new affordances. The world does not merely contain possibilities. It continually creates the conditions for possibilities that did not previously exist.

That is the Sophianic Principle, and it provides a way of thinking about consciousness, life and reality without requiring a final separation between mind and matter. The dream is not an illusion from which we must escape. The dream is the generative reality in which we participate.

Paul Treffner
metaffordance.com