Habermas’ theory of communicative action provides criteria for understanding and coherence in social systems. In the monadic field we read discourse as an energy flow with a normative orientation. Communication is not only exchange of symbols, but field coupling that aligns monads and stabilises shared meaning – exactly what we later measure with IEQ.
Understanding as a process oriented to consensus becomes, in our model, a field coupling of monads: reasons and objections generate resonances whose quality we capture with IEQ as a coherence metric.
In this way, discourse ethics is operationalised: ethics keeps its normative ambition, but gains an informational–energetic layer via coherence and stability measurements in the relation field — anchored in VQM (relation / topology) and XQM (substance).
Habermas conceives understanding as agreement based on reasons. In the monadic field we model discourses as operator sequences: contributions act as projections / channels on the state space, and objections act as counter-operators. Quality arises when the whole sequence increases the coherence of the field. We measure this with IEQ and we track it over time (windowed averaging).
Thus discourse ethics becomes operational: the validity claims truth, rightness, truthfulness correspond to checkable gains in coherence and stability. Where understanding fails, dephasing indices and spectral gaps (VQM) reveal disintegration.
Minimal protocol: (1) discourse goal, (2) operator inventory, (3) moderation rules, (4) IEQ dashboard, (5) ablation checks, (6) policy update.
Habermas offers a counterpoint to instrumental reason: understanding is an end in itself. In the monadic model this appears as an emergent quality of resonance patterns — successful discourse raises field coherence, failing discourse produces disintegration.
For AI design this means: systems must be built as communicative actors whose value is measured by their contribution to coherence — the bridge to XDM.
Jürgen Habermas – communication & discourse rationality
These works support our transfer from understanding to coherence metrics (IEQ) and field couplings.
Complementarity & context.
Non-locality & correlation.
Implicate order & holism.
Relativity & field.
We keep normative validity claims, but we also measure the coherence contributions (IEQ) of concrete discourses — transparency instead of dogma.
Yes. VQM also captures non-linguistic couplings (bio / tech / social), which can be mapped as field operators through XQM.
XDM makes “good” operational as an increasing coherence score — suitable for governance and AI design.