Sign in Subscribe

[Creative Note] Self-referential Activity: a Typology, a Situational Model, and an Operational Principle

Last updated on 

A beginning of a new Revisiting-and-Rebuilding project

Oliver Ding

November 5, 2025

NOTE on November 12, 2026


This article introduces several ideas about the concept of “Self-referential Activity (SRA).” It was written in November 2025 while I was working on The Ap-Re-Co Framework (v1, 2025). At that time, the primary focus was the Ap-Re-Co framework, and these ideas were saved as private notes for further development.

One year past, I now revisit these ideas and detach them from the Ap-Re-Co project, attaching them instead to the “Self-referential Activity” knowledge system. The text below is the original text. I do not modify it. It is the beginning of a new Revisiting-and-Rebuilding project.

To clarify, the “these ideas” mentioned above specifically refer to the three core theoretical elements presented in this article:

  1. A Typology: It proposes three types of SRA (Bottom-up, Top-down, and Cross-boundary). Although situated within the Ap-Re-Co context at the time, its core subject is the self-referential activity itself.
  2. A Situational Model: Proposed in Part 2, it was initially developed as a specific analytical model for situational analysis when the Ap-Re-Co framework expanded. It was an attempt to use SRA to build a situational model. However, I later set it aside because the subsequent Ap-Re-Co v2.0 framework did not account for this model. Now, it is time to bring this Situational Model back to its true home—the SRA domain—rather than leaving it suspended.
  3. "Self" as a Meaningful "Whole": This serves as a foundational operational principle for SRA. It addresses the critical question of how to define the boundary of the "Self" during the analytical process. The principle dictates that the "Self" is scalable—it can be an individual, a theoretical enterprise, or a network of enterprises. Defining this "Whole" is the mandatory first step for mapping any Part-Whole relation in practice.

A Reading Tip for Readers: The text below was written based on the specific context of 2025. As you read, please treat it as a historical document. You will observe how these theoretical ideas (the typology, the model, and the principle) emerged from my personal reflections and practical explorations at that time, and how the “present subject” (2026) is now recontextualizing them. This dual-lens reading experience is exactly what the Self-referential Activity is about.

[Creative Note] Self-referential Activity— a Case Study, a Typology, and a Situatonal Model


November 5, 2025

In June 2025, I conducted a case study on the historical development of the Ecological Practice Approach, and I realized that several early strategic moves already define the deep structure of the current landscape.

The second move took the Self-referential Strategy for Platform Orientation, which refers to shifting from Curativity Theory to the Knowledge Curation Project in June 2020.

In March 2019, I wrote a book draft Curativity, which introduced Curativity Theory and the early version of the Ecological Practice Approach. In 2020, I needed to decide on a new strategy for my knowledge enterprises. I chose Knowledge Curation as the primary application of Curativity Theory and started the Knowledge Curation Project.

1. The Seed of Self-referential Activity


An interesting thing was that one of the applications of Curativity theory was Knowledge Curation, which can be used to guide the development of Curativity theory. Thus, I roughly made a theoretical self-reference.

However, it depends on how we define the boundary of the “self” within Self-referential Activity. From the perspective of Curativity theory, it is too naive to claim that the pieces and parts are determined by the whole. In fact, Curativity theory embraces the dialectical hierarchy of the pieces-whole relationship. For example, as an application of Curativity theory, Knowledge Curation is a piece while the whole is the Curativity theory. The outcome of Knowledge Curation can be returned to guide the development of Curativity theory.

Later, I developed the Self-referential Activity model in 2021, also applying it to discuss building a concept system as a mental platform.

2. A Typology of SRA


In the developmental process of the Ecological Formism Framework, I also observed the Self-referential Activity (SRA) several times. After reflecting on these activities, I realized that there are three types of SRA.

  • Bottom-up SRA
  • Top-down SRA
  • Cross-boundary SRA

For example, the Ecological Formism Framework is part of the Ecological Practice Approach, so the former is a part while the latter is a whole. When I used the former to curate knowledge creations of the latter, I was making the Bottom-up SRA while the Ecological Practice Approach is the subject.

The “Framework” level refers to the Frame for Work project, which led to a theme called “Meta-Framework” in 2025. My work on the “Meta-Framework” contributed to the development of Ecological Formism Framework. This case is an example of Bottom-up SRA too. But the Ecological Formism Framework became the subject.

In contrast, the Weave Basic Form was developed by using the Ecological Formism Framework. Later, the former was curated as an extension of the latter. Thus, we can claim that this is Top-down SRA, because the Ecological Formism Framework was the subject.

We should note that knowledge systems that appeared as units of analysis of the Ecological Formism are not part of the Ecological Formism knowledge system. Adding a unit of analysis to the Ecological Formism Framework is a cross-boundary collaboration between two knowledge systems. This kind of collaboration can be termed as Cross-boundary SRA.

For example, the Ecological Formism Framework and the World of Activity Approach are two knowledge systems. From June to September 2025, my focus was on the latter and considered the former as a theoretical companion of the latter. See the diagram below, pay attention to #3.

From late June to July 2025, I traveled to China, spending most of my time in Fuzhou, also known as Foochow.

While in Fuzhou, I mainly used the World of Activity model, also known as the “Flow — Focus — Center — Circle” schema, to reflect on my 2015 autobiography. I discovered several distinct forms of “World of Activity,” corresponding to different developmental stages of life.

In a post dated July 5, I noted four theoretical approaches that could provide resources for the World of Activity approach. Likewise, the World of Activity approach could offer insights for those other four theoretical approaches.

In this way, the World of Activity sits at the center of my major theoretical creations, acting as a creative hub.

The diagram was titled Theoretical Companions of the World of Activity Approach. This theoretical framework offers a large view of a Creative Landscape.

I began writing notes on the first day of my trip. On July 12, I curated these early notes and wrote a long post outlining a new book. The project was planned in six parts, as follows:

  • Part 1: The World of Activity Approach
  • Part 2: The World of Activity Analysis Method
  • Part 3: Evolving Worlds of Activity
  • Part 4: Evolving Social Forms
  • Part 5: Evolving Thematic Enterprises
  • Part 6: Strategic Agency and the Flower of Heart-Mind

More details of these situational choices are highlighted in the diagram above:

  • #3 (Basic Ecological Forms) defines six basic ecological forms evolved from the Ecological Formism approach, supported by case studies based on my 2015 biography.
  • #4 (The Social Form (Action Patterns) Model) was developed during the trip after identifying three social forms from my biography.

Ideas about #3 and #4 evolved into the Social Landscape Framework (v2, 2025). Later, I added “Social Landscape” as a new unit of analysis of the Ecological Formism Framework.

The new model incorporates the Social Landscape framework and the latest ideas on social forms. I now use the model to build a hierarchical structure of the Social Landscape framework. Four layers are named as follows:

  • Variant: Social Norms
  • Quasi-invariant: Significant Social Forms
  • Invariant: Basic Ecological Forms
  • Invariant Set: Social Landscape

This is also significant progress for the Ecological Formism framework, as it offers a solution to connect embodied cognition with social cognition. More details can be seen in The Social Landscape Framework (v2, 2025).

We can claim that this is a case of Cross-boundary SRA.

3. A Situational Model for Mapping Self-Referential Activity


I realized that the “Together” should be divided into a Part — Whole structure, and that the Subject–Object relation can also be applied within this internal structure.

I also noticed that the Ap-Re-Co Framework is not convenient for mapping the case studies discussed above.

On November 6, 2025, I developed a new knowledge framework specifically for this purpose. The new model incorporates four schemas:

  • The “Subject — Object” Schema
  • The “Means — End” Schema
  • The “Part — Whole” Schema
  • The “Episode — Journey” Schema

This model became an operational framework for mapping self-referential activity (See diagram below).

The diagram above illustrates the new framework using a simulated case study with six episodes.

The method begins by defining the Subject and the Object. These two focal points must be identified for each case study and preserved across the entire journey.

For each episode, we then define the Means–End relation.

If we want to conduct a Self-Referential Activity analysis, we further define the Part–Whole relation.

For example, the diagram identifies the following six episodes within a Self-Referential Activity journey:

  • N1: Subject toward an external Object; no Means-End Relation
  • S2: Subject as End, external Object as Means
  • O3: Subject as Means, external Object as End
  • W4: Internal action between Subject as Whole and Object as Part
  • P5: Internal action between Subject as Part and an Object as Whole
  • S6: Subject as End, external Object as Means

To simplify the diagram, I did not apply the Means–End relation within the Part–Whole relation. However, such details can be identified and added as annotations — for example, by attaching a note to the “P5” node.

4. “Self” as a Meaningful “Whole”

The key operation in using the Self-Referential Activity model is defining the “Part–Whole” relation.

In other words, how do we define the “Self” in a case study?

The “Self” can be a family; in this case, an individual member is a part.

The “Self” can be a field; in this case, a practitioner or researcher is a part.

The “Self” can be a theoretical enterprise, such as Curativity Theory; in this case, an application of the theory — such as Knowledge Curation — is a part.

The “Self” can also be a Network of Enterprises, such as my creative life, which can be understood as a network composed of four theoretical enterprises:

  • The Ecological Practice Approach
  • Creative Life Theory
  • The Life-as-Activity Approach
  • The World of Activity Approach

At the level of the Network of Enterprises, we can observe numerous instances of Self-Referential Activity.

v1.0 - November 5, 2025 / v2.0 - November 12, 2026 - 1,830 words