Jared Diamond: Societal Collapse

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Jared Diamond: System Collapse“, posted with vodpod

If you listen carefully to what Jared Diamond is saying in the TED video above, he is describing not a five part, but a six part power curve into a systemic singularity. This has been one of the core themes of discussion of this blog.  We all seem to be too close to our problems to see the commonality.  The interrogatives come into play here:

  1. Goals
  2. People
  3. Functions
  4. Forms
  5. Times
  6. Distances

Times and Distances being the basis on which the higher orders are built.

When we look at the recent economic “crisis” we see 300 trillion in currency circulating and roughly 1 trillion to 2 trillion shifting suddenly and unexpectedly.  We witnessed a systemic collapse, a singularity, a tipping point, a power curve, an exponential change, a phase transition or whatever label you want to call it.  These have been happening everywhere since Time and Distance began in different contexts and orders both in human and non-human systems.

What Jared Diamond and other alarmists are implying is that human society is now a system approaching its final singularity in this century on this planet.  We are implying that today we are experiencing a less than one percent crisis on a power curve into a singularity.  How many more iterations will the global system withstand?  Will humanity make the step into space successfully before we experience a global dark age?  How will the six or more factors in the power curve play out?

The truth to me appears to be that power curves whether they play out or not result in either a systemic climax or anti-climax followed by a systemic collapse.  Would it not be better if we experienced a systemic climax that led to us expanding into the solar system?

Systemic collapse seems to be the fashion of this generation.  Every generation looks with fascination at its own youth, maturition, reproduction and acceleration into mortality.  Some die early, some die late, but all die.  It is an irrevocable law of nature.  It is not about self-interest.  It is about what self-interest is defined as.

Related Posts:

Beyond the Singularity

Servitas and Libertas

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Systema: Off with the Hats, Off with the Coats

In having attempted to think with the Six Thinking Hats metaphor developed by Edward de Bono and attemping to extend it by creating a Six Coat metaphor, I came to the conclusion that Edward was taking the wrong approach. He was using different colors, but he was not differentiating by shape. Consequently, his mnemonic device was hard to retain.

Using the icons I created in the previous post I am now going to abandon Six Hats, Six Coats and abstract the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture using these new mnemonic devices. I hope to improve them with time.

zachmanframework04.jpg

What is not recognized by John Zachman and Enterprise Architects is that the rows and columns of the framework are synonymous and fixed. That indeed there is only one methodology. This means the following:

  1. All concepts are created only by motives. Each motive has a unique set of the six focus concepts or entities.
  2. All contexts are created only by people. Each person has a unique set of the six focus contexts or relationships.
  3. All logics are created only by functions. Each function has a unique set of the six focus logics or attributes.
  4. All physics are created only by data. Each datum has a unique set of the six focus physics or constraints.
  5. All spherics are created only by nodes. Each node has a unique set of the six focus spherics or definitions.
  6. All episodics are created only by events. Each event has a uniques set of the six focus episodics or manipulations.

This is what social networks are teaching us on a smaller scale. When we look at a social network we are seeing contexts being created by persons. But there are five additional focuses (motives, functions, data, nodes, events) that create five additional perspectives (concepts, logics, physics, spherics and episodics) respectively. This we do not fully understand or apply.

Although our thinking is organic and we do not recognize the above framework, any reproduction and refinement of the results would require recording and executing them in this disciplined fashion.

Six Hats, Six Coats: The Structured Thinking System

Thought I would take a moment to briefly review how far we have come.

First, we looked at a variety of tetrads.

Here is James Moffett’s Universe of Discourse:

We concluded that human systems are hexads and we arrived at the Six Hat, Six Coat Framework:

Next, we will look at the Entities, Relationships, Attributes and Constraints within the framework.

Defining the Six Hat, Six Coat Entities has been very much like defining a periodic table. I have had to suspend my own biases many times to align myself with the concepts the Cartesian product were revealing to me.

I have stated that the relationships between entities are one to many left to right and one to many top to bottom. John Zachman believes the structure is like a table with movable columns. I do not. I believe the framework and the entities are fixed in a hierarchy implicitly. However, explicit relationships can exist contrary to this fundamental structure.

We have also explored the attributes for each of the entities and their constraints/freedoms. I provided an alternate set of names: Morality (cause), Compatibility (observer), Reliability (energy), Fidelity (matter), Accessibility (space)  and Availability (time).

I will be coming back to the Structured Thinking Language and experiment further.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Structured Thinking System: Attributes and Constraints

A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.
Sir Francis Bacon

One of my regular readers has asked me to put Lao-Tzu aside and tighten up my language. Since he is a Director of Emergency Management for a metropolitian area, I can understand his requirement for clarity and brevity. So I will put away my gong and see what I can do regarding what he says. He also asked me if I intend to use this concept and I want to make it clear that I will be the first to use it and I will use it until it works smoothly before putting anyone else at risk.

Another question that has come up is my continual tinkering with the terminology. I am doing so because the semantics are crucial to understanding this concept. I have found so far that wrestling with the terms reveals new layers of the concept I hadn’t seen before. For example, I have to distinguish between induction and deduction using a consistent terminology. This is not always obvious at first and requires several interations of refinement. I also wish to create a set of terms that are easy to remember. For example, I have been attempting to find a six letter word that starts with “RE” and means “trust”. Quite accidentally I came upon the term “REPOSE” and will be incorporating it into the vocabulary.

Anyone who has been following the full thread of this blog has probably discovered one of the underlying conclusions I have reached regarding the variety of Hexads I have created and explored. That conclusion is that the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework is a Cartesian Square. I also believe that the Structured Thinking System Entities are a Cartesian square. And now I am faced with the challenge of using the verb REPORT to create the attributes for the thirty-six Structured Thinking System entities.

Here is the latest version of the Structured Thinking System Entities:

sts-entities-01.jpg

I have already concluded the REPORT verb works with only six attributes:

  1. Motive
  2. Person
  3. Method
  4. Object
  5. Locale
  6. Moment

The RECORD verb is constrained to only six values per attribute:

  1. Motive: Reality, Unity, Quality, Quantity, Safety, Remedy
  2. Person: Creator, Leader, Master, Novice, Guide, Contact
  3. Method: Revise, Relate, Report, Record, Repose, Replace
  4. Object: Motive, Person, Method, Object, Locale, Moment
  5. Locale: Universal, Global, Official, Collegial, Habitual, Physical
  6. Moment: Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Second

One of each of these attribute values are captured by the RECORD verb to define a Structured Thinking System entity’s state. The Structured Thinking System relationships define which of the states can be assigned according to the hierarchy.

Related Posts:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links

Green Hat: It’s Best to Brainstorm Alone

I came across this quote on brainstorming today and find I agree with it.

“The result, it turned out, is not an anomaly. In a [1987 study, researchers] concluded that brainstorming groups have never outperformed virtual groups. Of the 25 reported experiments by psychologists all over the world, real groups have never once been shown to be more productive than virtual groups. In fact, real groups that engage in brainstorming consistently generate about half the number of ideas they would have produced if the group’s individuals had [worked] alone.

In my experience the added demands to coexist in harmony while in a group implements more self-editing of ideas than when you are alone. Maslow would conclude that esteem (relativity), belonging (optimivity) and safety (pessimivity) would actually limit self-actualization (creativity) . (Forgive me for creating two new terms, I’m virtual brainstorming.)

Traditional brainstorming falls under the social and social-psychological domain of Yellow Hat, White Hat and Black Hat in the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. More people automatically implies, more relationships, meaning more difficult generalization; more attributes, meaning more difficult normalization; and more constraints, meaning more difficult exceptionalization. It flies in the face of the assumptions behind the concepts of synergy and of socialist and communist thought. It also gives Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism a great boost.

Green Hat (creativity), is a state of mind where one rises above Yellow Hat (relativity), White Hat (optimivity) , Black Hat (pessimivity), Red Hat (anthropivity) and Blue Hat (chronivity). The state of leadership as opposed to citizenship, apprenticeship, studentship, humanship and existence.

If you want to think great thoughts, you must first think them alone.

It's Best to Brainstorm Alonereddit

Implicity and Explicity

Nothing can be so amusingly arrogant
as a young man who has just discovered an old idea
and thinks it is his own.
Sidney J. Harris

By now I think I have established the legitimacy of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework and I am presenting it here in what I am going to consider its final form:

zachmanframeworkabstract03.jpg

Every notational technique is a combination of two or more of the Six Coats. What we are working toward ultimately is a language to interrelate all Six Hats and Six Coats at once.

In this post I want to think about the terms “implicit” and “explicit” and how they relate to the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. For the purpose of this framework implicit is defined as unchanging and invisible; explicit is defined as changing and visible.

Every entity, relationship, attribute, constraint, definition and manipulation has an implicit and explicit name. As well, every motive, locale, object, method, person and event has an implicit and explicit name. An implicit name is unique and once assigned cannot be changed. An explicit name is unique, but it can be changed. The implicit name is not visible to the user. The explicit name is visible to the user.

An entity which contains its own primary key is an implicit entity. An entity which contains a key from another entity in its primary key is an explicit entity.

A relationship that connects one entity’s primary key as part of the attributes of another entity is an implicit relationship. A relationship that connects one entity’s primary key as part of another entity’s primary key is an explicit relationship.

If the primary key is never made visible to the user and cannot be changed it is an implicit primary key. If the primary key is visible and can be changed as long as it is unique it is an explicit primary key.

Attributes that are foreign keys are implicit attributes. Attributes that are non-key are explicit attributes.

Constraints are implicit when they are data listed in a foreign entity. Constraints are explicit when they are a datatype.

Definitions are implicit when they protect explicit child tables. Definitions are explicit when they cascade manipulations.

Implicit manipulations maintain an audit trail. Explicit manipulations do not maintain an audit trail.

So, what is the purpose of implicity and explicity? Primarily it is strength and flexibility. Implicit design results in rigid, but more integral systems. Explicit design results in flexible, but less complete systems. For example, in an office you have work to rule, which is implicit, and work to allow, which is explicit. Ultimately, in dealing with implicity and explicity it is best to strike a balance. No system is fully normalized or fully exceptionalized. It is necessary to allow for both normality and exceptions as no system is fully closed or fully open.

Implicity and Explicity