Every substantive theoretical project emerges from a specific genetic endowment—a constellation of fields, debates and authors whose concepts it metabolises, whose questions it inherits and whose limits it attempts to exceed. Socioplastics is no exception. The framework now consolidated as Muse, calibrated through its Proportional Scale Index and articulated across ten KORE cores, did not arise from disciplinary vacancy. It crystallised within a dense intellectual ecology, drawing on infrastructures of thought that range from cybernetics to decolonial feminism, from media archaeology to urban political ecology. The following sequence maps this ecology with two distinct axes of reading. The first is genetic: which fields provided the conceptual DNA for Socioplastics? Infrastructure studies contributed the notion of art as operative substrate; ontology furnished the language of scale and objecthood; systems theory supplied recursion and autopoiesis. The second axis is proximity: which fields currently sit closest to Socioplastics in thematic terrain, ready for dialogue, contrast or intervention? Urban studies, posthumanism and sovereignty debates occupy this near field, offering immediate zones of application and friction. The ordering therefore reflects strategic calibration rather than taxonomic neutrality.
