Languaging Co-creation

By John Wood

Introduction

Presented as an alphabetical glossary of concepts and neologisms, this paper depicts human co-creation as a potential global resource for turning existential 'unthinkables' into micro-utopian 'possibles'. Recent archaeological discoveries show the creativity of Homo sapiens to be innate. Also, as language is such a powerful shaper of our shared realities we all have some potential to ‘co-language’ beliefs, assumptions and, therefore, our collective behaviours. While some may find this fanciful, it has precedents. Raphael Lemkin had studied the Ottoman attacks on Armenia in WW1, concluding that they went beyond simple military aggression. He argued that attempts to destroy national or ethnic groups required new legal descriptions. However, only after he created the neologism ‘genocide’ in 1943 did the League of Nations recognise it. This changed international law. This suggests that while we can ‘language’ transitions from the ‘unimaginable’ to the ‘thinkable’, we need a better understanding of its co-creative nature.

“the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world”
(MARCEL DUCHAMP, 2022)

KEYWORDS

1). Abductive reasoning

Charles Peirce's term 'abductive reasoning' (1883) reverses the logic of deductive reasoning. In deduction, once we know that fact A and fact B are the case, then fact C follows naturally. Abductive thought starts with a surprising fact (e.g. C) and asks what unknown facts (e.g. A, B or D) might have caused it. It therefore requires suppositional information from outside the problem space. Whereas AI systems synthesise this heuristically from large bodies of data, humans can also draw upon personal and tacit forms of knowing. Einstein's theory of gravity was inspired by the experience of falling. It also seems likely that some of Newton's insights were informed by his early experiences of making things in workshops. Gregory Bateson regarded the anatomy and physiology of the body as a "vast abductive system with its own coherence within itself at any given time".

2). Artificial Intelligence

(see 'search' and 'research'). In AI systems abductive reasoning is conducted using Bayesian-style probability calculations. Some therefore see AI as a co-creative tool, given that it can aggregate, draw inferences and reconfabulate the opinions of many speakers. But whereas human co-creativity harnesses the gut feelings of those facing a current predicament, AI machines only draw upon large bodies of written data from the past. In the Menexenus, Plato's idea of 'voices of the dead' may remind us that, while inert data may augment human wisdom it cannot replace it. Here, society may need to decide whether to prioritise the co-creative skills of the living, or to continue training a new species of machine to outperform humans.

3). Autopoiesis

(see 'sympoiesis'). Maturana and Varela use the term 'autopoiesis' when explaining how ‘living systems’ self-sustain their survival in their immediate environment. In their model, a living system will only perish when it can no longer reconcile its interior and exterior identities. This concept can be a helpful building block in the understanding of human co-creative practices, as they require individuals to make transitions between and among 'I', 'me', 'us', 'we' and 'they'.

4). Bisociation

(see 'genius'). Arthur Koestler's term 'bisociation' is based on the assertion that all creative thinking is combinatorial. Here, several seemingly incompatible frames of thought are forced together to produce a creative leap that may surprise all. This challenges the myth of the lone genius. If acts of creation are always co-located, 'co-creative acts' might equally well derive from different regions of one brain, or from different individuals within a group.

5). Body-mind dualism

(See 'Head/Hand/Heart/Humour). The following quadrant is offered as a preliminary attempt to dissolve the often value-laden polarisation of 'practice' and ‘theory’.

Fig. 1 - A quadrant linking theory to practice

6). Catalysis

(See 'bisociation', 'emulsifier', 'endo-synergy' and 'exo-synergy'). In chemistry a ‘catalyst’ is a substance that will enhance, or quicken a chemical reaction without undergoing change itself. It is also a vivid metaphor for acts of creation. In 2021 David MacMillan and Benjamin List received a Nobel prize for inventing a rapid catalysis method. MacMillan was asked how he got the idea, "growing up in Scotland…you learn how to tell a joke and you can get to a punchline...". As Paul Auster put it: "The joke is the purest, most essential form of storytelling. Every word has to count."

7). Choral singing

Whereas verbal dialogue is asynchronous, choirs blend voices in unison. The singers experience bliss when each blends their unique sound into the whole. But this require skills of self-moderation within the context of the whole. It requires discipline, but not too much. By lowering cortisol levels and by releasing β-endorphin, immunoglobin A, dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin, choral singing can enhance shared feelings of affinity with others.

8). Co-authoring

(see 'co-languaging'). This term may refer to the executive editing of another person's text. But Wittgenstein's term 'language games’ likens the less hierarchical and ad hoc nature of game playing to how we select and re-negotiate words and phrases within conversations. In a professional context, the co-authoring process can become uncomfortable if it compels co-creators to challenge cherished assumptions, adapt to a new 'reality’ or question their own identity. When the process is radical enough to deliver new words or grammars it might call it 'co-languaging'

9). Co-languaging

(see 'co-authoring'). In the 6th century, Bhartrihari (450-510) argued that our ‘reality’ is structured by language. By changing a ‘linguistic paradigm’ we may change what is ‘thinkable’,. Often, a metaphor underpinning a concept may seem alien or confusing in another language or at least until the extra effort makes it illuminating. If language is to communicate it must contain 'essential' commonalities. 'Private languages' are therefore impossible, although it may also contain 'accidental' features. These are more idiosyncratic and 'expressive'. By ossifying the 'essential' features of language dictionaries and phrase books enable newcomers to memorise nouns and rules. But this is not how babies learn. They apply heuristic thinking on the basis of what seems to work within their immediate co-creative context.

10). Conscience

(see 'consciousness'). Before anatomical science became so sophisticated, we identified 'conscience' with the ‘heart’. Today, we might experience similar feelings of shame or regret but attribute them to neurotransmitters or other parts of the endocrine system. Thus, while an AI system may be trained to discuss moral principles based on the data from Large Language Models it will not have the capacity for conscience in this human sense.

11). Consciousness

(see 'conscience'). Although philosophical theories of 'consciousness' are too complex to outline here, its etymology derives from the word ‘conscience’. Technological descriptions are likely to be more pragmatic. Marvin Minsky famously argued that consciousness is merely a ‘low-grade system for keeping records’. This assertion was based on his observations of LISP, an early programming language which was designed to make very frequent 'inquiries' about its own state. However, whether AI systems are allopoietic or autopoietic remains a controversial practical and philosophical question.

12). Context

(See 'relevation', 'relational learning framework', 'relevation'). This term is used as a reminder that no proposition (e.g. co-creative idea) makes sense when isolated. Every proposition has a purpose identified by its creator. Thus it is only definable with respect to some focal event within a frame and not independent of it.

13). Conviviality

(See 'Ubuntu'). In an anglo-saxon context 'convivial' means cosy, friendly and celebratory. Ivan Illich (1975) helpfully re-defined it in the ecological sense of 'life forms supporting one another.' There is some resonance with Chinese terms 'guanxi' (關係) and 'wu wei' (無爲), Korean words, such as 'jeong' (정), and the African word ‘Ubuntu'. All can describe interpersonal ties that are informal and tightly-bound. Here, conviviality represents the living fields of cohesion that facilitate our collective collaboration and survival.

14). Co-optimism

(See 'co-pessimism'). Research has shown that consistently 'lucky' individuals are optimists. This is because the 'glass half-full' mindframe 'relevates' more beneficial opportunities. States of collective optimism, or ‘co-optimism', can sustain themselves when teams are 'contagiously optimistic’. (Here, ‘contagion’ denotes what, in systems theory, is called ‘positive feedback’ within the team.)

15). Co-pessimism

(See 'co-optimism'). Our informal research suggests that pessimism within co-creative teams is often more 'contagious' than optimism. We therefore designed team training tools to address this issue. (Here, ‘contagion’ denotes what, in systems theory, is called ‘positive feedback’ within the team.)

16). Co-semiosis

(See 'co-authoring' and 'co-languaging'). Where 'co-languaging' may create neologisms the term 'semiosis' ('semiose', verb) refers expressly to the creation of new meanings and, thereby, new opportunities and affordances. In 1670 Henry Stubbes coined the term ‘semeiotics’ from Greek words meaning ‘observant of signs’ and ‘a sign, a mark’ to describe how doctors read a patient’s symptoms. John Locke (1602-1734) later wrote about the 'doctrine of signs', using the term 'semeiotike' to describe how scientists reconcile the nature of things with human happiness, purpose and morality. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) broadened the term 'semiosis' to any action that uses signs to create, or to interpret meaning.

17). Creative quartets

(see 'context' and exo-synergy'). Most acts of creation and co-creation are defined, shaped and judged within their context. This includes an assumed purpose and other elements within the larger situation. Although, the precise purpose and client may initially be unknown or ambiguous, it can be useful to try to map them out in a way that reveals possible unforeseen relationships, their affordances and opportunities.

Fig. 2 - A Creative Quartet

As explained (see 'exo-synergy') the four-fold (i.e. tetrahedral) format is auspicious for reasons that are both cognitive and mathematical. Without using a diagram, John Ruskin (1819–1900) described the benefits of handcrafting in words. By choosing four categories and reflecting upon their six relationships we are likely to find at least six potential collaborators and/or beneficiaries.

Fig. 3 - a four-fold framework by John Ruskin

18). Distributed creativity

Cave painting has long been seen as a precursor to religion and science and very recent discoveries in Indonesia pre-date those previously found elsewhere. Their wider geographical distribution suggest that creativity is common to all humans. It may remind us that it also draws upon human capacities that are distributed within, around and beyond the individual mind-body.

19). Entredonneur

(See 'exo-synergy', 'co-optimism'). Richard Cantillon created the term 'entrepreneurship' around 1730. Etymologically speaking it suggests 'taking from between'. Disappointingly, Cantillon described it merely as a risk-taking activity. The economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) later characterised it more in terms of planning. i.e. "one who undertakes an enterprise, especially a contractor, acting as intermediary between capital and labour". It is remarkable that the concept of taking has come to seem normal, within the current economic order. Today we sometimes associate with business that is exploitative or predatory. In reality, it is hard to find any enterprise that is exclusively selfish, or exclusively altruistic, hence a reason to introduce the idea of ‘entredonneurship (‘giving from between’) as a companion term for ‘entrepreneurship’.

20). Emulsifier

(See 'catalyst', 'co-pessimism'). It's almost impossible to keep oil and water mixed together without an emulsifier to bind them. While a diversity of opinions can be potentially productive (see 'bisociation) in a team, they can sometimes lead to vehement disagreement or mutual avoidance. A human 'emulsifier' is likely to be someone emotionally literate enough to facilitate creative collaboration between the parties concerned.

21). Endosynergy

(See ‘exosynergy’). In orthodox macro-economic theory it is customary to disregard the unwanted side effects of trading by discounting them as ‘externalities’. The same kind of myopia appears to pertain to the original Greek word 'synergos' (συνεργός) which, literally, meant ‘working together. This contrasts with Aristotle's description: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts”, which implies that synergy is a potential source of abundance. In order to clarify this contradiction I have replaced the term ‘synergy’ with two new ones: (i.e. ‘endosynergy’ and 'exosynergy') in order to differentiate between the two notions.

22). Exo-synergy

(See ‘co-optimism',‘endosynergy’). Some structural synergies are dependent on the number of agents (e.g. participants) working together within a cluster. In 1751, Euler noticed a pattern of abundance in polygons.
In 1751, Euler noticed a pattern of abundance in polygons.
Euler's Law states that:
V + F = E + 2
where:

V represents the number of vertices
F represents the number of faces
E represents the number of edges

Fig. 4 - Different types of polygon

We can apply this mapping method (polygons) to team participants and the relationships between them (i.e. nodes represent participants and the interconnecting lines represent their relationships).

Fig. 5 - a quartet has 6 x more potential synergies than a duet

The number of relationships relative to participants, demonstrates how exo-synergies produce outputs exceeding 100% of input.
For example:

In a team of 8, each team member is responsible for 25% of all relations
In a team of 4, each team member is responsible for 50% of all relations
In a team of 3, each team member is responsible for 66.6% of all relations
In a team of 2, each team member is responsible for 100% of all relations

(see 'co-optimism').

23). Genius

The apocryphal story of Archimedes (287-212 BC) having a 'eureka moment’ condenses discovery and/or invention into a single moment of epiphany. The myth of genius as a unique and exceptional individual grew in the Enlightenment and lives on in today's era of ego, arrogance and celebrity. In a 1784 essay Kant laments mankind’s 'immaturity', which he saw as a lack of courage to use reason, intellect and wisdom ‘without the guidance of another’. Nietzsche (1844-1900) famously identified it as a demiurgic ‘will to power’ (‘Der Übermensch’, 1883). However, these characteristics of genius make it a doubtful contributor to 'co-creation' if we understand it as a collective and emancipated act of innovation.

24>27). Head/Hand/Heart/Humour

(see 'body-mind dualism', 'exo-synergy', 'search' and 'research'). Perhaps the growing appreciation of neurodiversities will lead to an education system that is more heterogeneous and co-creative. Currently, academia straddles a fault-line separating two approaches to co-creation. Whereas mainstream education's concern with 'critical thinking' reflects the cloistered scholastism of the ancient monasteries, art schools emerged from the more 'hands-on' methods of the mediaeval Crafts Guilds. It would be good to unify these, and other, approaches in a more comprehensive education system. Fig. 6 proposes 4 domains learning and knowledge as a suggested map of the breadth.

Domain	Location	Possible Purpose
HEAD	Brain	Oral or written knowledge e.g. critical thinking, reasoning, planning
HAND	Limbs	Manual dexterity, making, tacit knowing, acting, performing
HEART	Endocrine system	Emotional intelligence, sensing, feeling
HUMOUR	All of the above	Social skills, learning to fail, opportunity finding, fun

Fig. 6 - Towards a more comprehensive education system

28). Relevation

Bohm (1980) revived the old term 'relevation’ to demonstrate that 'relevance' is a co-creative act whereby entities 'relevate' one another. In his non-Newtonian model, cause and effect are distended and information is 'enfolded' into what he called the 'implicate order'. It proposes that thoughts are events that implicate us in a larger context, rather than the other way around. When something is 'relevant’ it becomes visible within that frame of thought. "To lift a certain content into attention again, for a particular context, as indicated by thought and language" (Bohm, 1995, p. 35). This derives from the old Latin word 'levate' which means to 'rise, or to lift up'...although the Sanskrit root of the word also describes 'lightness' in the 'illuminatory' sense of the word, as well as the 'weighty' sense. In Bohm's terms, it then becomes 'explicate' (i.e. visible, available, or meaningful) for us at a particular time and place.

29). Research

Within this context the notion of 'evidence-based inquiry' made sense. Academic research includes the gathering of data, citing trustworthy publications and setting up experiments that will provide evidence to validate or falsify a given hypothesis or assertion. We may therefore find it helpful and legitimate to use AI systems as an adjunct to 'research' as defined here (Wood, 2026), whilst keeping in mind their dangers and current shortcomings.

30). Search

(See Artifical Intelligence). There are several reasons why art schools (in the UK, at least), were always a dubious addition to mainstream universities. First, they evolved from the mediaeval Crafts Guilds rather than from the monastic traditions of discursive inquiry. Subjects such as fine art, design and craft therefore continue to foreground tacit aspects of knowing, rather than those of reading and writing. Second, where science tends to seek confirmation of experimental repeatability, artists often prefer flukes and anomalies (c.f. Ljubec, 2022). Aristotle’s definition of design as a ‘final cause’ implies that it is created from the future. This explains why artists and designers are seldom asked to provide evidence for their speculations. Whereas evidence is obtainable from records of the past and from observations of the present it is not directly available from the future. Their method is, therefore, more akin to ‘search’ than to ‘research’. This suggests more than one type of search. As Freud said: "It is obvious that in cases of losing, the object is already provided; in cases of finding, it first has to be looked for”. In the absence of a clearly defined purpose, human ‘browsing’ for ideas works by eliciting unconscious and tacit concerns and gestures rather than following explicitly formulated goals. Whereas 'search' within co-creativity is always situated and, ultimately, unprecedented, the concept of 'research' is, by definition post hoc. AI systems should neither be allowed to intrude upon, nor compete with, this capacity.

31). Second order systems theory

Cybernetics explains how simple regulators use negative feedback loops to 'steer', or self-regulate stability (e.g. thermostat and heater). Second order systems theory explains the need for additional (i.e. 'meta-level') feedback loops to coordinate the regulators. When reversing an articulated lorry the driver must coordinate a rule system that changes, counterintuitively. This is because cab and trailer both contribute to the steering process but do not coordinate themselves. This is like empathetic detection of a co-participant’s mood or state of mind.

32). Sympoiesis

The term ‘sympoiesis’ is part of a practical framework for monitoring and calibrating co-languaging (van Nieuwenhuijze & Wood, 2006). It monitors factors including self-respect, team-consciousness, altruism. Here are some of the questions used to evaluate sympoiesis within a co-creative act:

FACTOR	QUESTIONS FOR THE COLLABORATORS
Attributability	Can you still discern evidence of your individual contribution?
Transcendence	Is the work better than what you might have achieved separately?
Emergence	Did it have qualities that surprised you in a positive way?
Applicability	Could it be applied beyond its original purpose (e.g. by others?

Fig. 7 - Evaluating sympoietic aspects of the work

References

Anscombe, G.E.M., 1956, January. Intention. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Vol. 57, pp. 321-332). Aristotelian Society, Wiley.
Bateson, G. 1980. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books
BBC TV broadcast, 2021 7th October, David MacMillan: 'Being Scottish helped me win Nobel Prize'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58828279

Bohm, D. 1995, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London, Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul (first published in 1980).
Budiarta, I.D.P.G., Mustika, I.K. and Sastrawan, D.A.E.S., 2025. An Analysis of Differences Between “Communication” and “Expression” in Art: From Cave to Modern Art. Abjad Journal of Humanities & Education, 3(1), pp.65-81.
Duchamp, Marcel. "Salt Seller: The Writings of Marcel Duchamp." (2022).
Freud, A., 1967. About losing and being lost. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22(1), pp.9-19.
Ibri, I.A., 2022. The heuristic exclusivity of abduction in Peirce’s philosophy. In Semiotics and Pragmatism: Theoretical Interfaces (pp. 79-96). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Illich, I., (1975), "Tools for Conviviality", New York, Harper & Row
Jorati, J. ed., 2026. Slavery in Early Modern Philosophy 1765-1800: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press.
Koestler, A., 1967, The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin: London (reprint 1990)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago: Chicago and London
Ljubec, Ž., 2022. Becoming Polyphibious: Metadesigning metamorphosis and other solutions for a world defined by exceptions. In Metadesigning Designing in the Anthropocene (pp. 219-230). Routledge
Maturana, H., & Varela, F., 1980, ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition; the realisation of the Living’, in Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Reidel: Boston
McGilchrist, I., 2009. “The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World”. USA: Yale University Press. ISBN 030014878X
Merton, R.K., 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American sociological review, 1(6), pp.894-904.
Minsky, M, 1994, interview Horgan, J., Can science explain consciousness? Scientific American, July, pp. 88-94
Prayogi, A., Nasrullah, R., Wahyudi, N.A., Risky, M.J., Pratama, M.A., Irzaqi, M.I. and Reza, M.F., 2026. Human evolution and early cultural development: a historical-paleoanthropological synthesis. INTEGRATION: Journal of *Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1), pp.51-64.
Ruskin, J. (1885). The stones of Venice (Vol. 3). John B. Alden.
Sawyer, R.K. and DeZutter, S., 2009. Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 3(2), p.81.
Taleb, N. N. 'The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable' 2007. New York: Random House
Wallis, R.J., 2019. Art and shamanism: From cave painting to the white cube. Religions, 10(1), p.54.
Whorf, B. L. 1956, Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA
Harris, R., 1990. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to play games with words. Psychology Press.
Wiseman, R. 2003. 'The Luck Factor', London, UK: Random House John Wood - Feb 2026