Understanding concepts, relationships, and how ideas connect
A knowledge graph represents ideas as nodes (concepts) connected by edges (relationships). Instead of reading Ashby's books linearly, you can explore how ideas connect—seeing that "Law of Requisite Variety" derives from "Variety," or that "Ultrastability" generalizes "Stability."
Each concept has a definition, a formal statement, and often an intuition (a plain-language explanation). Relationships show how concepts depend on, extend, or constrain each other.
Our vocabulary is grounded in Gordon Pask's Conversation Theory. Pask—who studied under Ashby—developed the concept of entailment meshes: networks showing how concepts necessarily lead to other concepts. We use Pask's terminology so the same relationship vocabulary works across Ashby, Pask, Beer, Whitehead, and other thinkers on this platform.
We use seven relationship types. Each has a specific logical meaning. Read them as sentences: "Concept A [RELATIONSHIP] Concept B"
Meaning: If A is true/present, then B necessarily follows. A logically implies B. You cannot have A without B being true.
Meaning: To understand or define A, you must first understand B. B is a prerequisite for A. A derives its meaning from B.
Meaning: A is a more abstract, general, or developed form of B. A builds on and goes beyond B. A takes B to a higher level.
Meaning: A is a concrete example or specific instance of B. A demonstrates B in practice. A makes B tangible and specific.
Meaning: A places limits on B. A restricts what B can do or be. A defines the boundaries within which B operates.
Meaning: A creates the conditions for B to exist or occur. Without A, B wouldn't be possible. A is a necessary enabler.
Meaning: A and B are different in important ways. Understanding the contrast between them illuminates both.
Meaning: A and B share structural or functional similarities, often across different domains. They work the same way despite being different things.
| Relationship | Read As | Direction |
|---|---|---|
ENTAILS |
"A necessarily implies B" | A → B (forward implication) |
DERIVES_FROM |
"A needs B as prerequisite" | A ← B (trace backward) |
GENERALIZES |
"A is more abstract than B" | A ↑ B (up abstraction) |
PARTICULARIZES |
"A is a specific case of B" | A ↓ B (down to instance) |
CONSTRAINS |
"A limits what B can do" | A bounds B |
ENABLES |
"A makes B possible" | A supports B |
CONTRASTS |
"A differs from B" | A ≠ B (bidirectional) |
ANALOGOUS_TO |
"A works like B" | A ≈ B (bidirectional) |
Follow DERIVES_FROM chains backward. If you don't understand "Law of Requisite Variety,"
look at what it DERIVES_FROM ("Variety"). Learn that first, then return.
Follow GENERALIZES forward to see more developed forms. Once you understand "Stability,"
see what GENERALIZES it ("Ultrastability") for the next level of sophistication.
Follow PARTICULARIZES to find concrete instances. If "Ultrastability" seems abstract,
look for what PARTICULARIZES it ("Homeostat") to see it in action.
CONSTRAINS relationships show what bounds or limits a concept. "Channel Capacity" constrains
"Transmission"—this tells you where the hard limits are.
Q: Why Pask's vocabulary?
Gordon Pask was Ashby's student and developed Conversation Theory, which provides a rigorous way to think about how concepts relate. Since this platform will include Pask alongside Ashby, Beer, and Whitehead, using a unified vocabulary grounded in Pask makes the whole system coherent.
Q: What's the difference between DERIVES_FROM and ENTAILS?
They're inverses. If A ENTAILS B (A implies B), then B DERIVES_FROM A (B needs A). We keep both because the direction matters for learning: DERIVES_FROM helps you find prerequisites; ENTAILS helps you see consequences.
Q: What's the difference between GENERALIZES and ENABLES?
GENERALIZES means A is a more abstract/developed form of the same idea.
ENABLES means A makes B possible—they may be quite different things.
Example: "Ultrastability GENERALIZES Stability" (same family, more advanced). "Feedback ENABLES Error-Control" (different concepts, one makes the other possible).
Q: Are these relationships symmetric?
Only CONTRASTS and ANALOGOUS_TO are symmetric (if A contrasts with B, B contrasts with A). All others are directional—the arrow matters.
Q: Where do these relationships come from?
They're extracted from careful reading of Ashby's texts. Each relationship has "evidence"—a citation to where Ashby makes the connection. The extraction aims to capture Ashby's own logic, not impose external interpretations.