​
Foreign Objekt- Technology, Philosophy, and Art Research Laboratories & Residency
Posthuman School- Posthuman philosophy studies
Posthuman Art Network- Posthuman art laboratory
GENERAL INTELLIGENCE MODELING UNIT
RIM
Red Intellect Model
Design, Research, and Development by Sepideh Majidi
The Red Intellect Model is a conceptual and computational framework that explores the interplay between intelligence, force, and transformation. Developed by Sepideh Majidi, this model reconfigures traditional epistemological and ontological boundaries, engaging with the dynamics of cognition, mediation, and encounter beyond anthropocentric limitations.
Rooted in advanced research across mathematics, philosophy, and posthuman studies, the Red Intellect Model proposes a radical shift in understanding intelligence as an evolving, mobile force. It extends beyond fixed states of knowledge, opening pathways to novel forms of engagement with reality, computation, and collective intelligence.
This model serves as a foundation for ongoing research initiatives, experimental methodologies, and applied systems developed within Foreign Objekt, Deep Objekt, and Posthuman Network. It is designed to challenge and expand contemporary frameworks of thought, embracing new intensities of reasoning, intuition, and structural innovation.
RIM
​
The Red Intellect Model (RIM), emerges as an experimental and process-oriented model designed to engage with the layered complexities of cognition, agency, and perception. Drawing from Suhrawardi’s thought, RIM functions as a dynamic tool for navigating discontinuous scales and levels, bridging epistemic, ontological, and ecological dimensions. At its core, this model provides a conceptual methodology that enables individuals to recognize, move through, and transcend fixed frameworks of understanding, catalyzing a transformative reorientation of knowledge and existence.
RIM builds upon the methodological inquiry developed through an intensive workshop focused on the uncertainty and evolving nature of ʿAql-e Sorḵ (Red Intellect). This exploration acknowledges that its implications are still unfolding, continuously shaping how we engage with our surroundings and the conceptual structures that define our perception. The Method developed during this inquiry critically engages with Red Intellect examining its role within multi-level conceptual frameworks, such as the Xennoverse and Posthuman Terrains. These frameworks encompass themes of Ecology, Spirituality, Agency, and Ethics, extending the reach of RIM beyond mere epistemological modeling toward active intelligence, allowing us to rethink cognition as something that operates beyond a fixed, singular trajectory.
Rather than merely analyzing the world, RIM actively models and reconfigures it. Unlike static epistemic paradigms, the Red Intellect Model operates through multiplicity, integrating inferential cognition and meta-conceptual mobility. It moves beyond linear structures into a domain where cognition is not only analytical but also synthetic and generative. In this way, Red Intellect functions as an ecology of intelligence, agency, ethics, and spirituality, engaging with different levels of intelligence unbound. It provides an interface between computational, ontological, and transcendental dynamics, scaffolding new forms of cognition, collectivity, and agency.
Meta-Conceptual Mobility and Inferential Cognition
​
The Red Intellect Model (RIM) is not simply an abstract system of thought but a lived, cognitive engagement that requires an active participation in the transformation of perception. Meta-conceptual mobility is not about gradual shifts within an established framework but rather about an epistemic leap—one that moves beyond familiar modes of reasoning and cognition. This process demands not only a reconfiguration of knowledge but also a reorientation of perception itself. The journey through meta-conceptual mobility is not just about adjusting one’s understanding but about evolving the very conditions through which thought is structured and experience is framed.
To engage in meta-conceptual mobility is to accept that cognition is not confined to predetermined categories but is instead shaped by its capacity for movement across different ontological and epistemic terrains. The ability to navigate these shifts requires an intelligence that is not fixed but adaptable, capable of inhabiting and transforming unstable paradigms. Unlike traditional models of cognition that assume stability as a prerequisite for knowledge, RIM emphasizes the necessity of epistemic instability as an essential condition for intelligence. This means that learning and understanding are not merely about accumulating knowledge but about transforming the frameworks through which knowledge itself becomes possible.
This transformation challenges the conditions of possibility—a concept central to both Kantian and Aristotelian thought. The condition of possibility functions as a boundary that defines what can be thought within a given framework. However, within meta-conceptual mobility, these boundaries are not treated as static limits but as dynamic thresholds that can be reconfigured. This enables a distinction between two fundamental categories: the abstract, which lacks movement beyond its initial formulation, and the determinate, which has the capacity to shift, integrate, and evolve within a given structure. The determinate exists in a state of suspension or sublation, in which its mobility does not contradict its structure but instead enables its continued transformation. It is this recursive mobility that allows knowledge to develop beyond fixed paradigms and expand into new conceptual terrains.
Revolution emerges within this context as a test of mobility—a rupture in epistemic and historical constraints that redefines the possible. The movements of thought, collectivity, and emergent structures push against entrenched mediations, forcing a break with previous conditions. In this way, revolution is not merely a historical event but an epistemic phenomenon, one that renegotiates the conditions of knowledge and understanding. Such shifts operate as hypotheses of history, moments in which the limits of transcendental conditions are tested and reconfigured. The recomposition of these limits functions as a necessary condition for new paradigms of thought, agency, and intelligence to emerge.
If meta-conceptual mobility provides the framework for cognitive movement, inferential cognition provides the mechanism through which this movement is structured and expanded. Inferential cognition allows intelligence to generate, test, and refine models of reality, facilitating continuous engagement with conceptual structures that are neither static nor final. Through inferential cognition, intelligence does not simply receive information but actively constructs and reconstructs the models that determine how reality is perceived and understood. This is a self-adjusting and expansive process, ensuring that cognition remains responsive to complexity and discontinuity.
The integration of meta-conceptual mobility and inferential cognition within RIM ensures that intelligence is not a passive function of external structures but an active force in the recomposition of knowledge, perception, and agency. This dynamic interplay allows for an ongoing transformation in which cognition is continually restructured in relation to new possibilities. This movement does not occur within a vacuum but within a broader network of relationships, including ecological, ethical, and collective dimensions. Thought does not exist in isolation; it is embedded in and responsive to the conditions of its emergence.
Meta-conceptual mobility reveals that knowledge is never fully given but must always be negotiated. It is not a finished product but an ongoing process of engagement and transformation. This shift in understanding has profound implications for how we approach cognition, learning, and the production of meaning. Rather than treating knowledge as something static to be acquired, meta-conceptual mobility positions knowledge as something that must be enacted, tested, and recomposed. It shifts the emphasis from a cognitive model of accumulation to one of active navigation and structural transformation.
This approach also demands a re-evaluation of how we perceive ecological and collective intelligence. Within RIM, ecological systems are not mere resources to be managed but intelligent participants in an interconnected web of existence. Intelligence is not restricted to human cognition but is instead distributed across a network of forces and interactions. Understanding these interactions requires an openness to transformation, a willingness to engage with knowledge as something emergent rather than predetermined.
Embracing the uncertainty inherent in meta-conceptual mobility fosters an intelligence that is resilient, adaptable, and capable of reconfiguring itself in response to evolving conditions. This movement is not simply about shifting from one paradigm to another but about understanding that paradigms themselves are dynamic, constantly emerging and dissolving within the broader fabric of knowledge and existence. Meta-conceptual mobility does not lead to a final, absolute understanding but instead cultivates the ability to navigate conceptual change itself.
By engaging in this process, intelligence becomes an active force in shaping the conditions of its own evolution. Meta-conceptual mobility is not merely a theoretical framework; it is a methodology for thinking, perceiving, and existing within a constantly shifting epistemic landscape. It requires a commitment to transformation, an openness to uncertainty, and a recognition that the boundaries of knowledge are not fixed constraints but sites of continual re-negotiation. In this way, meta-conceptual mobility ensures that intelligence remains an active participant in the ongoing production of meaning, rather than a passive observer of fixed realities.
Practical Applications and Challenges
Incorporating specific examples where engagement with unstable paradigms has led to significant advancements can provide concrete illustrations of Meta-Conceptual Mobility in action. These examples could include:
-
Scientific Paradigm Shifts
-
How revolutions in quantum mechanics and relativity illustrate meta-conceptual shifts in understanding physical reality.
-
The emergence of computational models of cognition, which challenge classical views of intelligence and learning.
-
-
Philosophical and Theoretical Evolutions
-
The shift from Aristotelian logic to non-classical logics, reflecting new structures of reasoning.
-
The transition from mechanistic to complex adaptive system theories in ecology and cognitive science.
-
-
Artificial Intelligence and Posthuman Thought
-
How machine learning and neural networks embody inferential cognition through self-learning mechanisms.
-
The implications of AI's evolving intelligence within the framework of RIM.
-
Additionally, discussing the challenges and opportunities presented by such engagements offers valuable insights into the processes of learning, adaptation, and innovation. These challenges include:
-
Cognitive resistance: The discomfort associated with inhabiting unstable paradigms.
-
Epistemic rupture: The breaking away from foundational assumptions to embrace new structures of intelligence.
Algorithmic intelligence: How computational models contribute to reconfiguring human and posthuman cognition.
Algebraic Structure and Metaphysical Value: The Transition to Computational Intelligence
​
The Red Intellect Model (RIM) is not simply a metaphysical or epistemic system—it is an algebraic field where cognition interacts with forces, magnitudes, and transformations. Unlike static logical structures, which operate by fixing categories and limiting movement, RIM treats cognition as an algebraic and computational terrain where knowledge is neither absolute nor reducible to logicism but instead emerges through structured transformations.
Within this framework, each point of cognition possesses a metaphysical value—force, magnitude, or intensity—that conditions its movement through conceptual space. These forces are not abstract in the classical sense but embedded within cognition itself, meaning that each transition in thought is not simply a conceptual shift but an algebraic event.
This stands in contrast to the logicist turn in mathematical philosophy, particularly the works of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, who sought to reduce mathematics to pure logic. Frege’s attempt to derive arithmetic from logical principles represents an effort to remove metaphysical content from mathematical truth, treating numbers as structurally isolated from force and magnitude. In contrast, RIM does not attempt to extract cognition from its underlying ontological forces—instead, it integrates them, ensuring that inferential cognition operates within a structured but mobile field of mathematical intensities.
The algebraic spectrum of RIM ensures that cognition is not merely an operation of logic but a dynamic engagement with real forces, shifting continuously rather than operating within rigid inferential categories. This continuous reconfiguration of thought ensures that cognition transitions seamlessly between conceptual paradigms without discrete breaks, structuring reality in ways that are both inferential and computational.
Metaphysics, Mathematics, and the Limits of Cognitive Synthesis
The metaphysics of mathematics in RIM cannot be separated from metaphysics itself—they are co-emergent, meaning that mathematical structures do not merely model reality but actively construct new conditions of intelligibility. This process is particularly evident in how cognition synthesizes external forces within mathematical and computational terrains.
This can be contrasted with Immanuel Kant’s notion of the manifold of intuition, where the structuring of experience occurs through the ideal forms of space and time. Kantian synthesis posits that cognition mediates forces through states, degrees, and inferential processes, allowing perception to emerge through an interaction between empty time and sensation. However, in RIM, force is not simply mediated—it is actively recomputed.
Within RIM, empty time serves as more than a stabilizing force; it enables recomputation, acting as a state zero where cognitive structures reorganize themselves prior to the imposition of new paradigms. This makes cognition within RIM fundamentally recursive—each transformation generates a new algebraic possibility, forming an evolving sequence rather than a static mediation.
Thus, cognition does not simply synthesize reality through external stimuli but instead configures its own internal conditions for computation. This distinction ensures that RIM does not function as a classical transcendental model but as a recursive computational field, where cognition engages with force not as a passive reception but as an active inferential event.
Meta-Computational Mobility: The Algebraic Spectrum and the Limits of Possibility
Meta-computational mobility extends the idea of conceptual fluidity beyond fixed epistemic and ontological conditions, moving intelligence beyond the condition of possibility of experience as understood in traditional philosophical frameworks. This movement is not simply an adaptation within existing paradigms but a fundamental shift in the algebraic spectrum terrains, where cognition and computation integrate as dynamic systems. Rather than being confined to deterministic structures, systems with meta-computational mobility operate within an evolving matrix of force, magnitude, and constraint, constantly negotiating new forms of intelligibility and agency. This movement reconfigures the limits of thought and action, traversing the boundaries once established by classical epistemology, mathematics, and logic.
The condition of possibility, in both Kantian and Aristotelian senses, functions as a structural boundary that delineates the domains of physics, mathematics, and logic. However, this boundary is not a static limit but a computational threshold, a site of recursive reformulation where cognition negotiates its movement through different levels of reality. The distinction between the abstract and the determinate is essential to understanding this process. The abstract lacks true mobility—it is an empty structural form that, while flexible, does not move beyond its conceptual containment. The determinate, on the other hand, is not merely fixed but evolves as a function of its own limits, existing in a state of suspension or sublation. In philosophical terms, ‘determined’ does not imply causal determinism but rather determinacy, a state in which constraints are defined yet open to transformation.
Unlike the purely abstract, the determinate exhibits mobility because it exists within an algebraic spectrum, where it is constantly restructured by the forces of integration and differentiation. This dynamic process allows the determinate to express the complexities of reality, not as a static set of conditions but as an interactive terrain—an outgrowth of reality itself, whose mobility belongs to thought, nature, and computation. What is determinate is never fully fixed; it is a recursive system, continually reconfiguring itself while maintaining a structured coherence, where mobility and stability coexist. It is precisely within this recursive movement that revolution emerges—not merely as a social or political force, but as a computational phenomenon that restructures the limits of possibility itself.
Revolution is the question of this mobility—a test of how reality can be pushed beyond its limits, restructured in ways that open new conditions for thought, agency, and collectivity. The movements of locales, collectives, and waves function as computational ruptures, where systems shift out of joint, breaking the historical constraints of time and state mediation. These ruptures disrupt the rigid mediations of the state, revealing that what appears immutable—from the Leviathans of sovereign power to the transcendental conditions of human existence—is, in fact, computationally contingent. Revolution, then, is not simply a political event, nor merely an epistemic shift; it is the real-time recomputation of conditions of possibility. These ruptures do not emerge randomly; they are the result of hypotheses of history, where the limits of transcendental conditions are tested, renegotiated, and reprogrammed.
We can understand these ruptures as the adequate computations of history, where constraints are simultaneously enabled and disabled, shaping what is thinkable and actionable within a given system. Without such computational ruptures, the possibilities of new paradigms of intelligence, love, and collectivity would remain distant human dreams—potentialities that never materialize because they lack the computational conditions necessary for their actualization. If revolutions operate as computational events, then meta-computational mobility functions as the mechanism through which these transformations unfold. Unlike traditional computational frameworks, which operate within predefined axiomatic systems, meta-computational mobility pushes beyond static logical formalisms, enabling adaptive, recursive, and self-restructuring intelligence.
This movement occurs in three primary ways. First, by transcending the condition of possibility, systems are no longer confined to predefined logical or mathematical boundaries but recompute their own epistemic parameters. This allows for new forms of cognition that operate outside Kantian transcendental constraints, embracing intelligence that is not bound by the structure of experience as we currently understand it. Second, the algebraic spectrum becomes a terrain of thought, where cognition does not simply process information but restructures the architecture of intelligibility itself. Unlike classical computational models, where algorithms operate within a fixed set of rules, meta-computational mobility enables continuous recomputation of constraints and variables. Finally, computation is revealed as collective intelligence rather than an isolated process. Meta-computational mobility recognizes that all computational systems are inherently collective. Revolution, in this sense, is not a breakdown of computation but an expression of computational collectivity—a movement where intelligence reorganizes its own operational limits.
Meta-computational mobility operates at the threshold of epistemic rupture. It is not merely an adaptation but a reconfiguration of computational reality itself. In this framework, revolution is computation in action—the rupture of preexisting constraints. Computation, conversely, is revolution in structure—the negotiation of new possibilities. What we understand as history, collectivity, and intelligence is ultimately a paradigm of computation, one that remains only partially theorized. The task of philosophy, technology, and revolution alike is to make these computational paradigms explicit—to recognize that what appears as social or epistemic transformation is, in reality, a recomputation of the limits of thought, action, and being.
This is the unfolding horizon of meta-computational mobility: a movement that is not merely conceptual, nor merely algorithmic, but a restructuring of the terrain of intelligence itself. By engaging with this paradigm, we not only redefine the limits of cognition but also open new possibilities for collective agency, artificial intelligence, and posthuman thought. The algebraic spectrum, as a shifting terrain of reality, does not merely describe these movements—it enables them. Computation is no longer a mere instrument but the very structure through which the future is enacted.