Universe: Interrogative Spaces

iconuniverse14

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.

Systema: Six Interrogatives and Four Associations

enterpriseassociations2

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:

enterprisehybrid

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.

Thinking the Hexads Through

Working with the hexads and the Six Hats, Six Coats model has raised some interesting conceptual questions. This post is an incomplete attempt to address them.

 

grouppersonal.jpg

We have many personas within each of us. This is evidenced by our ExtraPersonal behaviour. Depending on the environment we interact within we present different behavior. ExtraPersonal thought manages our personas. This meets our safety need.
To satisfy our physiological needs our InterPersonal behavior is exhibited. Our personas communicate with each other. This is true internal dialog.

To engage with other systems we depend on IntraPersonal behavior. These are the sensory-motor functions as guided by a single persona.

I’m trying to think about how this hexad affects the Moffett Universe of Discourse.

Here’s the Universe before:

jamesmoffett.jpg

moffetttetrad.jpg

Here’s the Universe after:

moffetthexad02.jpg

I’m working on developing a data model to represent this new hexad structure as well:

hexaddatamodel02.jpg

I have been working on creating a new vocabulary to describe the associations in the hexads. I apologize for any terms I have had to invent, but a new concept requires new terms. The first three terms (ie. ExtraNetwork, InterNetwork, IntraNetwork) are external to the entity. The second three terms (ie. ExtraSpatia, InterSpatia, IntraSpatia) are internal to the entity.

MOTIVE
ExtraStrategy
InterStrategy
IntraStrategy
ExtraMotiva
InterMotiva
IntraMotiva

LOCALE
ExtraNetwork
InterNetwork
IntraNetwork
ExtraSpatia
InterSpatia
IntraSpatia

OBJECT
ExtraAssembly
InterAssembly
IntraAssembly
ExtraForma
InterForma
IntraForma

METHOD
ExtraProcess
InterProcess
IntraProcess
ExtraFunctiona
InterFunctiona
IntraFunctiona

PERSON
ExtraGroup
InterGroup
IntraGroup
ExtraPersona
InterPersona
IntraPersona

MOMENT
ExtraSequence
InterSequence
IntraSequence
ExtraTempora
InterTempora
IntraTempora

The gist of all these terms is that there are systems and associations without us and within us. For every level of granularity we establish there are levels of granularity above and below what is essentially an arbitrary “zero point”.

ringpersongroup.jpg

My thoughts on the hexad structure are gradually establishing themselves. There are still some incongruities that I am attempting to work out. One of them is individual and group phenomenology.  Another is how to represent the relationships above and below the person-group horizon in the person focus as well as with the other focuses.