These buttons represent the networks that can exist.
For background go to the following link:
These buttons represent the networks that can exist.
For background go to the following link:
Since reading the work of Clare W. Graves of Spiral Dynamics fame, reflecting on the work of all the people mentioned in my Blogroll as well as my recent foray into Zen I attempted to review and revise my work on the assortment of frameworks I had come up with. As I was making revisions it dawned on me that nature had done all the work already.
“Outside this office, Business as Usual;
Inside this office, Thunder and Lightning.”
Colonel John Boyd
I decided to take another angle of attack. I realized I was dealing with entities, hierarchies, attributes and relationships and one thing Boyd overlooked, results, in two dimensions not one. You may remember this graphic:
I realized I would have to take the Boyd Pyramid a bit more seriously. And I have. I compared Boyd’s work to Einstein’s, saw the correlations and what I think is a flaw.
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
The first thing I want to address is a misconception regarding solids. It was one Plato made as well as R. Buckminster Fuller. There are not five stable solids. There are six.
The mistake Plato and R. Buckminster Fuller made was to demonstrate the stability of a triangle composed of three rods to their students while saying that the simplest solid in three dimensional space is the tetrahedron. He didn’t realize the triangle in his hand was the simplest solid. The triangle is a two sided three vertex solid that is the simplest enclosure of space. Our eyes use two of them to locate an object and calculate distance.
Considering the above solid and the Platonic Solids we have six three dimensional closed network structures as illustrated below:
Take note of the stability of each of the solids. What this means is that the triangulated solids are able to support themselves structurally, while the non-triangulated solids collapse.
What I realized regarding the work of Einstein and other physicists is they did not regard the various phases of matter as important. However the states of matter are important. Each state from the triangle up to the icosahedron as illustrated above are higher states of order. Yet, each state of order is fundamental to the universe in which we live. And all are simply phases of what I call the “ZenEntity”.
I decided after looking at what I had found regarding the solids to reject contemporary empirical conventions and simply address one thing. We have six fundamental ordered states. After several billion years of evolution would not all organisms have what they require to function in response to all of the six states in their niche?
My next question was, “How do I represent the phenomena I had encountered as a network?”
In my profession there are data architects, database designers, data modelers, database administrators, data entrists, data analysts, database developers, database programmers database analysts, data warehouse architects, data warehouse analysts, data warehouse developers, Extract-Transform-Load architects, ETL analysts, ETL designers, ETL developers, ETL programmers, Business Intelligence architects, BI analysts, BI designers, BI developers and so on. However, I was never satisfied with any of these position titles. So, I coined one myself: data designer. I was of the opinion no matter how much data was out there, it was finite. Zero and Infinity were very useful, but they violated the laws of thermodynamics. I saw seven distinct phases of order in the universe and only saw transitions from one state to another. I could design according to those states.
This led me to explore how I could represent the six states. I studied and applied a variety of project lifecycles such as System Development Lifecycle, Extreme Programming and Rapid Application Development, joint application development. I had learned various enterprise frameworks such as Zachman and TOGAF, modeling techniques like UML, the various generations of programming languages, data structures, network topologies, organizational concepts, rule based systems, event based systems, data based systems, user centered design, goal directed design, location based services, pattern languages, service oriented architecture, hardware architectures and many more. I studied English, Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, German and French to see how I could develop a consistent taxonomy as well.
Ultimately I concluded that a majority of the people out there working on these problems had abandoned the basics for pet concepts. They had no idea how many entities there were. They had no idea how those entities should be related. So I took it upon myself to identify all the relations that were applicable and came up with the following:
The associations are as follows:
As you can see, the network is asymmetrical and allows for Node, Lattice, Tabular, Lattice, Linear; Lattice arrangements. Note that since all of the entities are simply states of a single “ZenEntity” none of the states are independent from each other in the network.
Now, that we have established the solids and how they are interconnected we can look at what the actual phases of the ZenEntity are. Each of these phases are recognized in physics, however I have not come across any discussion of the possibility that they are together a set of fundamental phases.
Usually, we see Space, Time, Energy and Mass described in Einsteinian classical physics. We also have discussions of Ions, Gases, Liquids and Solids as states of matter. But we don’t see them together.
Next, we will see how these states are all very important to our sensory systems.
As well as the phases there is another way to look at the six solids. This is in the Latinate language of the six states. The states differ from the phases in that they deal with the essence or source of each of the states.
The essence of each of the states is as follows:
Now, I am going to introduce you to some friends of mine. I call them “Zen Sensors”
As you can see each ZenEntity State has a coresponding human sensory organ:
Next, we have for your viewing pleasure the standard interrogatives and how they correlate:
I found this interesting, because I spent a great deal of time resisting the order of these interrogatives. Finally, I just went along and found ultimately the order does make perfect sense. It is an acquired taste.
If you read enough Anglo-Saxon it makes sense.
Having considered the Entities, Associations, States and Sensory Organs, let us now look at how this relates to a hemisphere of the brain:
The above illustration shows the left hemisphere of the brain and the major regions. They are color coded to correspond to the fundamental states I have described. You can also see the corresponding sensory organ as well as the corresponding network structure in the region:
Everything is great so far, but there is the fact that there are two hemispheres to the brain and they interact through the Corpus Callosum which I claim is where the self resides. One of the interesting things about my study of Latin is that I discovered most questions actually required a two part answer. This answer would be composed of an Archetype and a Type. After reading Jill Bolte Taylor’s book, My Stroke of Insight and listening to her account of her perceptions while the left hemisphere of her brain was being shut down by an exploded blood vessel, it became apparent to me that the left hemisphere of the brain contained the Types the Latin language required and the right hemisphere of the brain contained the Archetypes. It was necessary to create a two axis model to accomodate a brain with two hemispheres:
Each of the light colored cells in this table represent a connection between one coordinate system association (row) and another coordinate system association (column). This accounts for the broad variety of properties we encounter making the states we experience.
There are actually not one or two, but four directions you can take on the above table. Top to Bottom is right hemisphere deduction. Bottom to Top is right hemisphere induction. Left to Right is left hemisphere deduction. Right to Left is left hemisphere induction.
This is a physiological model of human perception that I have arrived at. Our current definitions of dimensionality are incorrect. Each state has its own dimensionality, its own associations, its own sense organs, its own region of the brain and the brain two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum. If the work of Dr. David Bryson on Physical, Decisional and Perceptual Learning is right, then deduction happens during waking and induction happens during sleeping.
This is not a complete model by any means as it does not deal with scale-free networks. Or does it?
But to this point, that is the Zen Universe.
Forget Microsoft. Forget Apple. Let’s break the rules and create something truly beautiful.
This is the new Systema Framework. Let’s look at definitions for each of the icons. I want you to note that putting this together even close to coherently is taking considerable time and I will be revising this post repeatedly.
Things I’ve learned:
Systema Framework Terms
Systema Framework Icons
CREATIVE are the logic logos in your system. These are the logos you will use to explain your motives. Another way to look at it is using Edward de Bono’s hats in two dimensions: Creative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Moral Law.
DIRECTIVE are the logic directions in your system. Reason directions are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive. They connect source reason logos and target reason logos. In de Bono hats Creative directions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Command.
POSITIVE are logic methods in your system. Reason methods are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive. Ultimately the reason methods act on the reason forms. In de Bono hats Creative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Training.
OBJECTIVE deals with the logic forms you add to the system. In de Bono hats Creative objections. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Discipline.
NEGATIVE is the logic universe of your system. The reason nouns, reason verbs, reason methods and reason forms have been created and are an existing part of your system. In de Bono’s hats Creative Negations. Note that it is called a negative because a cosmos can only falsify a system otherwise it simply corroborates. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Terrain.
INTUITIVE are the logic triggers applied to the reason universe of your system. Changes to reason forms are reason triggers. In de Bono hats Creative intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Heavens.
CREATOR are the director logos (plant, animal, person) in your system. In de Bono hats Directive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Moral Law.
DIRECTOR are the director directions between director logos. In de Bono hats Directive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Command.
POSITOR are the director methods applied to director forms. In de Bono hats Directive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Training.
OBJECTOR are the director forms. In de Bono hats Directive objections. In Sun Tzu factors Command Discipline.
NEGATOR is the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Terrain.
INTUITOR are the director triggers applied to the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Heavens.
CREATE is the methodic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Positive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Moral Law.
DIRECT is the methodic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Positive directions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Command.
POSIT is the methodic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Training.
OBJECT is the methodic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Training Discipline.
NEGATE is the methodic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Terrain.
INTUIT is the methodic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.
CREATION are the pragmatic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Moral Law.
DIRECTION are the pragmatic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Command.
POSITION are the pragmatic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Training.
OBJECTION are the pragmatic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Discipline.
NEGATION are the pragmatic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Terrain.
INTUITION are the pragmatic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.
CREATORY are the universe logos of the system. In de Bono hats Negative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Moral Law.
DIRECTORY are the univserse directions of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Directives. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Command.
POSITORY are the universe methods of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Training.
OBJECTORY are the universe forms of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Discipline.
NEGATORY are the universe universe of the system. In de Bonos hats Negative Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Terrain.
INTUITORY are the universe triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Heavens.
CREATUM are the chronic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Moral Law.
DIRECTUM are the chronic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Command.
POSITUM are the chronic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Training.
OBJECTUM are the chronic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Discipline.
NEGATUM are the chronic universe of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Terrain.
INTUITUM are the chronic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Heavens.
After pulling out a Latin and Greek dictionary during a phone call to my professional writer sister, I came to realize that John Zachman served us a horrible brutalization of Greek for terminology. Had he only looked at the Greek language with some insight he would have saved me considerable difficulty in correlating definition with application.
Johnny ‘s been messin’ wid our ‘eads, man.
Correcting that usage will be on my to do list.
Here, I am abstracting the framework by incorporating the correct Greek, abstracting the focuses by using polygon icons and abstracting the perspectives by using de Bono’s thinking color code:
There you have it, a completely new take on the Mix Thirty-six.
Hey, Aristotle, Six Unities! Hey, Plato, Six Polygons! Hey, de Bono, Six Hats!
Yes, after a day’s head banging, I switched when and where.
In the next post, I will be definining each of these icons. Now we can talk about System Logics, System Organics, System Mechanics, System Physics, System Cosmics and System Chronics with a sense that our terminology will migrate across disciplines easily if our audience has any understanding of Greek roots.
I came up with this representation of de Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats” and Zachman’s “Framework Focuses” early in this blog’s lifetime. I am hoping I have achieved the final form as we see it here. The major change is the switch between the last two rows and the switch between the last two columns. I consider this structure a fixed hierarchy both vertically and horizontally.
As part of my reflection upon this I created a table to think about the various hexads I’ve encountered:
One thing I realize from this exercise is that events are the definitions of the system. If you do not define an event you will never observe it. In other words, you cannot see what you are not looking for. Nodes are the instances of the system and provide the affordances the outside world can manipulate.
You can also see here that I have categorized cause, energy and time as “logical” and observer, mass and space as “physical”. I am just playing here, but what are the potential implications? Could cause, energy and time be simply logical constructs? Could observer, mass and space be the only truly physical constructs?
In many early posts in this blog I was looking for different fits of different conceptual groups. Tonight after wracking my brains into the wee hours some of the conceptual sets began to fit. And fit very well.
The first column represents the six entity relationships and my extended James Moffat Speaker Audience relationships. The second column represents the Zachman Framework Focuses. The third column represents the Zachman Framework Perspectives. The fourth column represents the Galilei/Newton/Einstein equation. The fifth column represent my extended James Moffatt Time Contexts. The sixth column represents my terms for Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats. The seventh column represents the Associative Structure of the six entity relationships.
The rows in the table represent the synonyms across the conceptual sets. I will leave you free to reflect on the implications.
After going over the system models in an earlier post I had to revise my thinking and conclude that the Structured Thinking Lifecycle takes on the following character:
What this reveals is the lifecycle of a system is about communication. It also reveals that the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor is actually a continuum from Repeating Moments to Revising Motives for induction and from Revising Motives to Repeating Moments for deduction.
This is Edward de Bono’s wisdom: “Analyze the Past, Design the Future”. That is all there is to communication. Listening is inductive; speaking is deductive.
Think about this from the perspective of the DIKW hierarchy: