Universe: The Fabrics of Perception


I am working with the Latin language and it is helping me to classify my thoughts more effectively by understanding historical correlations in meaning. For example matter was considered a fabric. The term for light, “lume”, comes from the term loom which alludes to textile manufacture. In fact all of the textile terms merge with geometry where they were practically applied.

WEAVE: a fabric
POINT: a intersection
LINE: a line
ANG: a cut
HEIR: an area
VOL: layers
QUAL: a bundle

These terms have influenced our thinking for literally thousands of years. We still talk of the “fabric” of space, the fabric of time and “material” or whatever. We are unintentionally applying a metaphor. Yet it is a metaphor that has served us well.

At this point I present a scale that I have arrived at for human sensory perception.


– 8 , – 2 , – 1 , 0 , + 1 , + 2 , + 8


8 is infinity

2 is two

1 is one

0 is zero

+ is positive

– is negative

– 8 : WEAVE below perception: Datrice
– 2 : POINT: below acception: Sortrice
– 1 : LINE: below exception: Matrice
0 : ANGE: exception: Natrice
+ 1 : HEIR above exception: Patrice
+ 2 : VOL: above acception: Fratrice
+ 8 : QUAL: above perception: Satrice

1. WHO: Eyes: Occipital Lobe: Speciatation of Matter.

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root ASTR for the night sky:

– 8 : WEAVISTER: below perception
– 2 : POINTISTER: below acception
– 1 : LINISTER: below exception
0 : ANGISTER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRISTER above exception
+ 2 : VOLISTER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALESTER: above perception

PhotonicPhotons, PhotonicElectrons, PhotoincIons, PhotonicGases, PhotonicLiquids, PhotonicSolids, PhotonicMolecules

2. WHAT: Ears: Temporal Lobe: Association of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root FUL for Electricity or “Lightning” which is interesting because it means we hear events.

– 8 : WEAVIFUL: below perception
– 2 : POINTIFUL: below acception
– 1 : LINIFUL: below exception
0 : ANGIFUL: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIFUL: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIFUL: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIFUL: above perception

ElectronicPhotons, ElectronicElectons, ElectronicIons, ElectronicGases, ElectronicLiquids, ElectronicSolids, ElectronicMolecules

3. WHEN: Nose: Brainstem: Attibution of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root FIED for Ions or burn which is interesting because it means we smell ions or things that are reactive.

– 8 : WEAVEFIED: below perception
– 2 : POINTFIED: below acception
– 1 : LINEFIED: below exception
0 : ANGFIED: exception
+ 1 : HEIRFIED: above exception
+ 2 : VOLFIED: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIFIED: above perception

IonicPhotons, IonicElectrons, IonicIons, IonicGases, IonicLiquids, IonicSolids, IonicMolecules

4. WHERE: Throat: Parietal Lobe: Domination of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root AER for Gases

– 8 : WEAVIER: below perception
– 2 : POINTIER: below acception
– 1 : LINIER: below exception
0 : ANGIER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIER: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIER: above perception

GasicPhotons, GasicElectrons, GasicIons, GasicGases, GasicLiquids, GasicSolids, GasicMolecules

5. WHY: Mouth: Frontal Lobe: Ingestion of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root AEST for Liquids or “Sea” which is interesting because it means that the Sea is the surface of the water.

– 8 : WEAVIEST: below perception
– 2 : POINTIEST: below acception
– 1 : LINIEST: below exception
0 : ANGIEST: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIEST: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIEST: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIEST: above perception

LiquidicPhotons, LiquidicElectons, LiquidicIons, LiquidicGases, LiquidicLiquids, LiquiidicSolids, LiquidicMolecules

6. HOW: Body: Cerebellum: Deduction of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root TER for Liquids or “Earth” because it means that the creators of the word Earth meant “water”.

– 8 : WEAVITER: below perception
– 2 : POINITER: below acception
– 1 : LINITER: below exception
0 : ANGITER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRITER: above exception
+ 2 : VOLITER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALITER: above perception

SolidicPhotons,  SolidicElectons, SolidicIons, SolidicGases, SolidicLiquids, SolidicSolidsSolidic, Molecules

HOW MUCH: Gut: brain region unknown

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root DUCT for Counting which is interesting because this involves the digestive process.  Molecule literally means “soft stone”.  Another word for dung.

– 8 : WEAVIDUCT: below perception
– 2 : POINTIDUCT: below acception
– 1 : LINIDUCT: below exception
0 : ANGIDUCT: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIDUCT above exception
+ 2 : VOLIDUCT: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIDUCT: above perception

MoleculicPhotons, MoleculicElectrons, MoleculicIons, MoleculicGases, MoleculicLiquids, MoleculicSolids, MoleculicMolecules.

Note: The seven International System Units are:

– 8 : WEAVE: below perception: Candela
– 2 : POINT: below acception: Ampere
– 1 : LINE: below exception: Kelvin
0 : ANG: exception: Metre
+ 1 : HEIRabove exception: Second
+ 2 : VOL: above acception: Kilogram
+ 8 : QUAL: above perception: Mole

I posted all of the above, because I believe that classification is underrated. If we spent more time thinking about the aesthetics of our classification language, which is presently total crap, we might make more discoveries.

How much do we conceal from ourselves because we deceive ourselves into thinkng a dogmatic classification system won’t bear fruit.

Have you ever seen this guy?


He beat his brains out letting the data talk to him and came up with this:

Periodic Table

When Dmitri Mendeleev created this table to describe periodic behaviour of the elements, many of the elements had not been discovered. However, the table projected what the properties of those elements would be making the search much easier.  Dmitri also was very good at making Vodka.

As I have discussed there are Satrice, Fratrice, Patrice, Natrice, Matrice, Sortrice and Datrice networks.  Each of them classify in different ways.  Understanding these networks and their classification are the road to new discoveries.  Networks are classification systems.

I just saw this in the New York Times:


It is called a “Knowledge Map”.  It is a plot of the link clicking behaviour of a scientific community.  Not what they say is important, but where they are going that they think is important.  From this information it may be possible to reorganize knowledge to make it more accessible to everyone.

And that is what we are all here for getting and giving access.

Posted in 2. Science, 7. Quality. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Zen of Systems and Networks


My own work with Enterprise Frameworks and Networks has led me to come up with the following table.  It describes the Nodes and Links in a Complete System Network.  I am saying that the Nodes representing Goals, People, Time, Locations, Code, Data, Qualities and Quantities can all be represented as Scale-free Networks and that each of these Node Networks require only one datatype.  I am also saying that there are only three types of links in networks: recursive links within a set, multiple links between sets, single links between sets.  I know of no case where this has been attempted in the manner I am attempting to represent it.


If you have been following my blog you are aware that I have been struggling for a long time to come up with a framework and a clean terminological set to describe systems.  I think I have come one step closer to that goal today.  The table above describes a Fact composed of eight Nodes (first white row illustrating entities) and the Links (last three white rows illustrating recursive, multiple and singular relationships) for each of the System Networks (Interrogative columns).  One of the interesting aspects of this System Network Model is every Fact is composed of a Unique Set of all eight Nodes.  However, all the Nodes in one Fact do not have to have Links to all the Nodes in another Fact.  Each Node within a Fact is independent regarding its Links.  Therefore you have a single set of System Facts with each Fact containing a single set of Interrogative Nodes each connected by their respective Link Networks.

I have recently been writing with the intent to challenge centrism on any one of these networks and advocate a more integrated view. I still remember dealing with data centrism, event centrism, user centrism, goal centrism, program centrism and schedule centrism over the course of my career. All of them have a role to play. My insight into all of these Nouns being Linked by Verbs in only three ways required me to look at all of the Enterprise Architectures and disengtangle the Nouns, Links and Verbs from the reasoning and representations that extend back beyond computing itself.

The Data Model below is a hybrid of Relational Models and Dimensional Models.  I call this an Associational Model.  It is using Relational Architecture to represent it.  However, I think that an alternate Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) architecture called the Associative Model of Data would be better suited to the task.  I am using relational representation as I am still trying to communicate with a community only familiar with Relational technology.

The first thing to note about this model is Links are represented by Associations.  Associations link two Nouns using a Verb.  What is interesting about this model is every Verb, Association, Noun and Fact is unique.  The vertical connections are Many to Many relationships which allow two vertically adjacent Verbs, Associations or Nouns to have multiple unique relationships between each other.  What this means is there are no integrity problems (duplicate values) as the system network would enforce uniqueness.


The premise of this model is that the Nodes are not dimensions at all.  I am rejecting the traditional concept of dimensionality instead I am saying that there are three dimensions of Links: recursive, multiple and singular.  All we perceive are Facts, Nodes and the Links between them.

So you could come away with the following Zen koan:

entity without entity,

source without source,

path without path,

target without target,

size without size,

dimension without dimension.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces


In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.

Universe: The Czerepak Framework

I just visited the archive of Tim Brown’s Design Thinking Blog and came across the following post:

Definitions of design thinking

Tim Brown » 07 September 2008 » In design thinking »

In my HBR article I gave a ‘definition’ of design thinking. It was:

Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.

On reflection this is a narrow description that focuses on design thinking’s role within business. The next sentence that I wrote.“….design thinking converts need into demand” , which I borrowed from Peter Drucker, broadens things out a bit but still assumes an economic motivation.

I am grappling with two questions as I think about this.

1. Is there a general definition of design thinking?

2. Is it useful to have one?

I think Tim has something very good here and suggest that the following would be a further breakdown of his classification:

  • Viable: Business
    • How Much: Quality
    • How Many: Quanitity
  • Feasible: Technology
    • What: Material
    • How: Process
  • Desirable: Human
    • Why: Goal
    • Who: People

Obviously, if you have been following my blog, you can see the same pattern appearing and reappearing as we explore other’s concepts.  The six interrogatives continue to reassert themselves.  However, I think I finally nailed one more aspect on the head.  I hate to say it, but it came to me in a dream about working on a programming project:

  • Reliable:
    • Where: Location
    • When: Timing

Quantity and Quality are two aspects of design/system thinking that are continually overlooked by academics and specialists, but not business people.

Interestingly enough this perspective is not new.  Clayton M. Christensen in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma discusses a four part model that fits nicely with this:

  1. Availability
  2. Compatibility
  3. Reliability
  4. Cost

I consider, Clayton’s the most empirical ordering.  Consequently, I would like to mesh Tim’s, Clayton’s and my perspective into the following:

  1. Feasibility: Technology
    1. How
    2. What
  2. Compatibility: Personality
    1. Why
    2. Who
  3. Availability: Market
    1. Where
    2. When
  4. Viability:  Business
    1. How Much
    2. How Many

Now, looking at this I am reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Tipping Point, and it adds the following character to the model:

  1. Feasability: Mavin
    1. How: Processes
    2. What: Materials
  2. Compatibility: Connector
    1. Why: Goals
    2. Who: People
  3. Availability: Salesman
    1. Where: Locations
    2. When: Schedules
  4. Viability: Customer
    1. How Much: Costs
    2. How Many: Units

Universe: A Multi-Dimensional Medium

Let’s do a thought experiment.  I want to take design thinking and abstract it to a system.


Imagine that there are no solids, liquids, gases or plasmas or particles.  That the Universe is a fluid medium swirling between equilibrium and non-equilibrium in multiple dimensions.  What we perceive to be solid, liquid, gas or plasma are not states, but intersections of dimensions that describe interdimensional vortices.  Energy is the intensity of a vortice.  Mass is a vortice of a set of dimensions.  Light is a vortice of a set of dimensions.  All of the particles are vortices of sets of dimensions.  Each influence the other based upon which dimensions they are composed of.

R. Buckminster Fuller clearly states in his work that we should perceive the systems as finite four dimensional spheres.

There are only four fundamental states:  vortice verge, vortice converge, vortice emerge, vortice diverge.


Everything we perceive are combinations of these vortice states.  The states are +/- vortice yaw, +/- vortice pitch, +/- vortice roll.

If any vortice is spiraling toward you it is positive, if any vortice is spiraling away from you it is negative.  By definition, no vortice can be stationary with respect to you.

There are only eight fundamental vortices: How, What, Why, Who, When, Where, How Much, How Many.

This gives us the following eight vortice, four state table:


Take the time to look at the terms defining each of the white cells in the table.  Each row is the addition of a dimensional vortice.  For example: Each additional “when” vortice is another separate clock.  Each additional “where” vortice is another separate radius.  All of them are factors in a system or a design.

And even this representation is inaccurate.  If we consider fractal geometry and chaos theory, there are no points, no straight lines, no arcs, no planes, no circles, no polygons, no polyhedrons, no spheres, only vortices that are above, within or below our range of perception.  Space cannot be filled with any geometric shape.  Everything is composed of vortices–spirals.

We have to abandon the flat world, flat space models we currently cling to.  The world and the universe are not infinite planes.  The world is a finite island of non-equilibrium in a predominantly equilibrium universe.

And that is it, the Czerepak (Chair-eh-pak) Framework.

Copyright (c) 2008 Grant Czerepak.  All rights reserved.


Systema: Operation, Tactic, Strategy




Icons: Systema Iconic Language: Part I

In this series of posts I will be exploring the concept of an iconic language built upon the vocabulary I have been incrementally creating as part of the Systema Framework.

Abstract Relationships


Concrete Relationships


I have worked with icons before and this is a revisit of some of those ideas as well as modifications.

Apport Icon Set

The Apport icon set defines the entities that can exist in a system:


Accord Icon Set

The Accord Icon set defines the relationships that can exist in a system:


Below is a cross product of the Apport and Accord Icon sets:


Record Icon Set

I am sure that the icon set below is familiar if you have followed my blog.


Note that the cross product below is only for the entities themselves and not for their relationships.


Properly utilized, an iconic language would allow you to build sentences out of the individual icons interactively.

I plan to continue to think about this subject further and will update as I go along.

Below are links to web pages and pdf documents I have read so far on the topic:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links


Parable of the Watchmakers

There once were two watchmakers, named Hora and Tempus, who made very fine watches. The phones in their workshops rang frequently; new customers were constantly calling them. However, Hora prospered while Tempus became poorer and poorer. In the end, Tempus lost his shop. What was the reason behind this?

The watches consisted of about 1000 parts each. The watches that Tempus made were designed such that, when he had to put down a partly assembled watch (for instance, to answer the phone), it immediately fell into pieces and had to be reassembled from the basic elements.

Hora had designed his watches so that he could put together subassemblies of about ten components each. Ten of these subassemblies could be put together to make a larger sub- assembly. Finally, ten of the larger subassemblies constituted the whole watch. Each subassembly could be put down without falling apart.


For the longest time I have been playing with interrogatives and associations.  Now, I think I finally have a complete representation and taxonomy.

Abstractly, it looks like the following:


Concretely, it appears as follows:


As I mentioned in my earlier post, I was not satisfied with a six interrogative, four association model.  Consequently, I worked to resolve this and came up with the table above with the interrogative columns (seven hats) and the associative rows (seven coats).  I also came up with the data model below:


My hypothesis is, used correctly, the above data model can address all relational/dimensional requirements.

Related Posts:

Systema: Six Interrogatives and Four Associations


Since I have been thinking about the dimensionality of Einstein’s universe and the associations within the six interrogatives, it has led me to wonder about how the two fit together.  I have expressed it in the above diagram.  The association types are the rows and the interrogatives the columns.  We immediately have four dimensions for each interrogative.  Food for thought as I think about my current reading on network theory.

This hearkens back to a model I did in June 2007:


You can see by using an association table for each interrogative this model provides for all the possible associations within the ontology.  However, I do not think this model is complete.  I’ll discuss that a bit later.

Business Physics III: Energy and Gravity


In examining an Newton’s and Einstein’s equations an interesting result became apparent to me.  According to Einstein’s equation

E = mc^2

If we consider my four dimensional equations in my previous related post

E = Mass * Light = M * C


E = ( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) ) * ( ( S * S”’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) )

Related Posts:

Business Physics I: Space and Time

Business Physics II: Mass and Light

Business Physics I: Space and Time


Everything you’ve learned in school as “obvious” becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.
R. Buckminster Fuller

One of the discoveries I have made, so far, in my study of physics and how it translates to business is that the fundamental building blocks of of the universe are the point and event.

The first step is to create the cardinal Distance set

Distance = | p |

and to create the cardinal Duration set

Duration = | e |

The second step is to create the ordinal Area set

Area = ( p / p’ )

and to create the ordinal Frequency set

Frequency = ( e / e’ )

The third step is to create the exponential Volume set

Volume = ( p / ( p’ * p”)

and the exponential Amplitude set

Amplitude = ( e / ( e’ * e” ) )

Finally, we consider the complete sets of Events giving us Space

Space = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( p’ * p” ) )

and Time

Time = ( ( e * e”’ ) / ( e’  * e” ) )

where e are event sets and p are point sets.  Space and Time are four dimensional set constructs.

This applies to Business in the sense that Locating (Space) and Timing (Time) are the fundamental building blocks of business:  The first order of business.  We will move up to the next level in the next post.

Related Post:

Business Physics II:  Mass and Light

Business Physics III: Gravity and Energy