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 »

STL: Structured Thinking Language R0.1

The more original a discovery, the more obvious it seems afterwards.
Arthur Koestler

Since I posted STL: Structured Thinking Language and STL: Structured Thinking Language (remix), I have made quite a bit of progress in my thinking regarding the syntax of Structured Thinking Language.

The Six Hats are no longer verbs. There are only two verbs in STL, INDUCE and DEDUCE. INDUCE is a bottom up process of learning the structure of a system. DEDUCE is a top down process of teaching the structure of a system. INDUCE observes and orients. DEDUCE decides and acts. All STL statements begin with the INDUCE or DEDUCE verb to determine whether you are referring to an existing or a new system.

Each of the verbs can also be IMPLICIT or EXPLICIT according to the definitions found in Implicity and Explicity.

The Six Hats are now six adjectives:

  1. CONCEPTUAL refers to the creation of entities. Revise. Creativity. Meaning.
  2. CONTEXTUAL refers to the creation of relationships. Relate. Relativity. Uniqueness.
  3. LOGICAL refers to the creation of attributes. Report. Optimicity. Benefit.
  4. PHYSICAL refers to the creation of constraints. Record. Pessimicity. Cost.
  5. MECHANICAL refers to the creation of affordances. Intuit. Anthropicity. Usability.
  6. OPERATIONAL refers to the creation of manipulations. Engage. Synchronicity. Convenience.

The Six Coats remain the unchanged nouns:

  1. MOTIVE refers to the rules of the system.
  2. LOCALE refers to to the nodes of the system.
  3. OBJECT refers to the data of the system.
  4. METHOD refers to the functions of the system.
  5. PERSON refers to the people of the system.
  6. MOMENT refers to the events of the system.

Giving us the following:

stl_r01_3.jpg

Now that we have the verbs, adjectives and nouns of STL we can work on the syntax:

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
CONCEPTUAL NOUN.nounname;    

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
CONTEXTUAL NOUN.nounname
                (   MOTIVE.motivename,
                    LOCALE.localename,
                    OBJECT.objectname,
                    METHOD.methodname,
                    PERSON.personname,
                    MOMENT.momentname
                );    

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
LOGICAL     NOUN.nounname.attributename;    

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
PHYSICAL    NOUN.nounname.attributename.constraintname;    

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
MECHANICAL      NOUN.nounname
		(	select,
			insert,
			update,
			delete
		);    

INDUCE|DEDUCE IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
OPERATIONAL    NOUN.nounname.attributename.value;

NOUN can be any one of the Six Coats nouns. Noun name can be any name unique for that specific noun. Cardinality of context is always one to many be the relationship associative, relative or recursive. A noun has multiple attributes each with a constraint, affordances and ultimately a value.  Note I do not call mechanical access “privileges”.  I prefer “affordances”.

Structured Thinking Language R0.1

Systema: Exteroception and Interoception

hugo-critchley.jpg

I was reading an article in Scientific American MIND this evening which discussed the research of Hugo Critchley on emotional intelligence and interoception. Interoception which is narrowly defined as the perception of stimuli inside the body. Interoception activates the brain’s right insular cortex and has lead Critchley to a broader definition of interoception. The reason being that not only perception of internal stimuli, but of emotion results in intense activity in the insular cortex. It has also been found that another center in the brain associated with ideas, motives and values often shows activity in conjunction with insular cortical activity. The right insular cortex appears to be the location where mind and body meet. Neurologically, you perceive hunger in the same way you perceive anger. You have a physical location for intuition, that “gut feeling”.

So, why do I bring this up? The main reason is I am thinking about Maslow’s hierarchy and the DIKW hierarchy. I have been struggling to substantiate a hexad as opposed to a tetrad for the number of layers of input and output and I think this provides another cornerstone for my argument. Interoception, the perception of stimuli inside the body, and exteroception, the perception of stimuli outside the body, fill the gap beneath data and divide Maslow’s physiological needs. I am proposing the following hexad:

  1. Green Hat: Wisdom. Self-Actualization. Conceptualization.
  2. Yellow Hat: Knowledge. Esteem. Contextualization.
  3. White Hat: Information. Belonging. Logicalization.
  4. Black Hat: Data. Safety. Physicalization.
  5. Red Hat: Intuition. Physiological. Humanization. Interoception.
  6. Blue Hat: Communication. Existential. Detection and Effection. Exteroception.

In my future discussions I am not going to talk about the movement of data or information or knowledge or stimuli. I am simply going to refer to input and output. Input ascends the hierarchy and output descends the hierarchy. From which level it originates is also irrelevant if it is ascending it is always input, if it is descending it is always output. The transformations are discrete. They are not increases or decreases in detail, but changes in perspective.

If you are following this lengthy thread you may notice my terms changing a bit each time. It is an iterative refinement of my understanding that is leading to these changes. Hopefully, I get closer to a final version with each change.

Insideness and Outsideness Revolution

I have been playing with the concept of insideness and outsideness for a couple of posts now and I am realizing I have my concept of insideness and outsideness backwards.  I realized the individual’s or system’s existential or operational layer is always to the outside and the number of layers or complexity of an individual or system is reflected as increased depth.

So, not only will I be presenting hexads, I will be presenting them with new insight into insideness and outsideness.  That insight is that the boundary that separates insideness from outsideness separates one system from another.  Here is what Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs properly looks like:

sixmaslownew.jpg

Here is what Moffett’s Universe of Discourse properly looks like:

sixmoffettnewa.jpg

Therefore, the following diagram is right and is always right in representing complete communication.

commcyclezachman.jpg

And regular daily interaction between systems probably looks something like this:

commcycle70percent.jpg

So, there you have it.  For insideness and outsideness to exist, a System A requires a System B.  The following pattern is also possible:

commcycle70percentb.jpg

Links:

Reexamining Insideness and Outsideness

In working on the Six Hats, Six Coats model it occurred to me that perhaps my work on tetrads requires reexamination.  It occurred to me that maybe I am not dealing with tetrads, but hexads.  Let’s use a reexamination of Maslow’s hierarchy as an example.  I am reincorporating the physiological needs and I am adding an existential need to the mix.

sixmaslow.jpg

 As you can see there are not only two more needs, but another boundary as well.  I am especially curious about the implications for Moffett’s Universe of Discourse and McLuhan’s Laws of Media.  Here’s Moffett:

 sixmoffetta.jpg

As you can see Moffett’s Universe of Discourse requires no magnificent leap of faith to convert from a tetrad to hexad.  I will attempt more of these tetrad to hexad conversions in later posts.

Systems versus Humans

In my previous post I discussed art and design in the context of communication. Now I want to reveal a correlation that came up between the work of John Zachman and Abraham Maslow. I believe it reveals that computer systems and human systems respectively obey the same basic principles.Here is the Zachman model:

commcyclezachman.jpg

Here is the Maslow Model:

commcyclemaslow2.jpg

As you can see both frameworks share a similar hierarchy. It is my assertion that they are the same.

Design versus Art

In his blog Up Against It Thomas Roth-Berghofer discusses his reading of The Laws of Simplicity by Medea. He quotes Medea:

“The best art makes your head spin with question. Perhaps this is the fundamental distinction between pure art and pure design. While great art makes you wonder, great design makes things clear.”

I believe the path to the appreciation of Art and the path to the appreciation of Design is very simple.

Art’s path is Physical -> Logical -> Contextual -> Conceptual

Design’s (Good Design’s) path is Conceptual -> Contextual -> Logical -> Physical

I believe that communication is a continual cycle ascending and descending these complimentary paths between people.

communicationcycle3.jpg