Icons: Associations, Measures, Media


I have just developed a set of icons to represent the seven SI Units graphically as relationships. I would welcome insights, opinions, links that might help me refine this design.

The Units:


The System International Units correlation is the following:

1. radiance: candela

2. heat: kelvin

3. time: second

4. distance: metre

5. mass: kilogram

6. current: ampere

7. molarity: moles

First, I have been thinking about color. It would be possible to have only two types of triangles: black and white with black outline. The additional two shades are not essential, but are added to emphasize subordinancy.

As for the directionality of the triangles, we are actually looking at the planar faces of geometric figures, geometry not directionality. I agree, this would have to be learned.

Each icon represents a step in a progression from one state to another. In working on this I see a pattern:

1. energy: radiance

2. energy-time: heat

3. time: time

4. time-distance: speed (but not included)

5. space: distance

6. space-current: mass

7. current: soft current

8. phase: molarity: current-energy

I think the System International people have missed the brass ring. I know I am just as educated and experienced as those French bureaucrats. Probably more so.

There is also a missing anthropological element to the Units:

8. phase: molarity: current-digit (redefined)

9. numbers: numeracy: digit

10. speech: literacy: digit-calit

11. money: hard currency: calit

12. people: populacy: calit-energy

Obviously, I have to extend my model to account for five more association types. I don’t believe that will be difficult as for example there are at least two more many:many associations I did not account for or properly assign to my model.

As this is a new representation, there will be serendipitous moments. This is one of them.

A story around an icon:

2. heat can have it’s own continuum: energy-time, kelvin, sudio (sound engergy), frequency (sound time), music or audiograph (sound map), audition (sound blog), audience (sound people), auditorium (sound space). Actually, voice could be used too, because of the directionality vocio (people sound), etc.

I will work on this and post here after making the modifications.

3-D thinking is not difficult once the structure is assembled. But I am finding assembling the structure requires many visits and revisits to the basics, and the experts are not as expert as they make out.


Relationary Browser

What I am finding in my current work is that there are a set of symmetrical, semi-symmetrical and asymmetrical polyhedrons that can be used to describe an individual’s network with the the individual as the focus and direct links as radii to individuals represented as polytopes and the reporting groups (circles) represented as polygons formed from connecting the vertexes for the individuals in the reporting groups with edges.

Suddenly, “spheres of influence” can be modeled and utilized to the benefit of the communities of the individuals.

Prezi www.prezi.com could be used to navigate the vertexes on the surfaces of these spheres of influence as a giant two dimensional map of linked pages that you could “dive” into or “surface” out of through the links instead of forwarding or backwarding.

All you would have to do is have a “map” button that you click on and all the child pages for the current page are displayed as a Prezi map.  As a line or table of pages,  as a sphere with the pages displayed on the surface or flat one degree daisywheel with the tops of the pages pointing to the center where an icon for the current page resides.  Rotate the daisy to look at the pages right side up.  Or navigate freely Prezi style.

This could be applied to webpage networks, citation networks, social networks, location networks, date networks, time networks or state networks, career networks, image networks or any other form of network you can dream up.

If you have a company capable of developing this, I am looking for work and this would be a great project to get paid for.

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.

150: A Network Threshold

I was thinking about Malcolm Gladwell’s interesting book Tipping Point and it occurred to me that there is a network that is similar to his “The Magic Number 150” chapter that says communities break down when the membership reaches 150.

It is the C60 Buckminsterfullerine or a truncated icosahedron.

Truncated icosahedron

This interesting little geodesate has 60 vertexes and 90 edges.

In the context of an associative database that is 60 entities and 90 associations or 150 Entity Types.

It is interesting that the most symmetrical of shapes might as a network correspond to the threshold he describes in communities.

Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

  1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
  2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
  3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

Additional Schema Components:

  1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
  2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
  3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
  4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.


are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

Systema: Geodesates, Nodes and Links

“To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” — Isaac Newton

A predominant issue arising from my work is the discovery of the difference between a node and a link.  A node type represents a state type while a link type represents a transaction between state types.  However I am finding there are a limited number of node types (self-ordered states) and link types (self-ordered state actions).

In the diagram below, each polyhedron is a first frequency geodesate and has a unique polytrope/polytype combination.  A polytrope is the number of edges per polyhedron vertex.  A polytype is the number of polyhedron vertexes.  This is not the final version.  I am still working to purify my geodesate concept.

What I am revealing here is that each of the seven Node Types on the Left has only one Link Type on the right.  In the same way that an association is composed of a source node type and target node type, an association is composed of a source link type and target link type.

Here is an example of a homogenous Entity to Entity association:

Here is an example of a hetergeneous Entity to Positity association:

Having considered this it is now possible to conclude that there are a unique set of nodes each with a unique link which can be used to build homogeneous or heterogeneous associations.  In otherwords, each node type can perform only one action type.  It is the reaction type of the target node type that makes the action reaction combination unique in the system.

Let’s look at some examples of node type and link type associations:

  1. To identify a positity, positifies an identity.
  2. To objectify a projectity, projectifies an objectity.
  3. To chronify a chronity, chronifies a chronity.
  4. To projectify a quantity, quantifies the projectity.
  5. To qualify an identity, identifies a quality.

Fourty-nine possible type combinations exist.  I think there are even more types which I will explore with Archimedean Solids and higher frequency Geodesates in later posts.

The Brain: Creativity and Convention

I have been reading Jill Bolte Taylor’s book, My Stroke of Insight and began thinking about creativity and convention as right brain parallel and left brain linear functions respectively. I also began to think about David Bryson’s Circadian Theory of Learning and related research where left brain linear learning seems to dominate the waking state and right brain parallel learning seems to dominate the sleeping state.

Concludes Walker, “These findings point to an important benefit [of sleep] that we had not previously considered. Sleep not only strengthens a person’s individual memories, it appears to actually knit them together and helps realize how they are associated with one another. And this may, in fact, turn out to be the primary goal of sleep: You go to bed with pieces of the memory puzzle, and awaken with the jigsaw completed.”

My work with systems has me thinking about Cursive and Recursive relationships and how they might play out as right brain and left brain phenomena as well where right brain cursive relationships interrelate and left brain recursive relationships intrarelate.

Finally, I am thinking about John Zachman’s Enterprise Architecture and the creation of Collections, Associations and Attributions as right brain functions and Objections, Definitions and Operations as left brain functions.

Here is the video of Jill Bolte Taylor’s TED.com presentation

Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “TED | Talks | Jill Bolte Taylor: My s…“, posted with vodpod