The Brain: ZenUniverse 1.0


“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

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.”

Albert Einstein


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:

  1. Pattribute: a triangle entity
  2. Battribute: a one to many relationship describing the association between a triangle and an tetrahedron
  3. Attribute: a one to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a hexahedron
  4. Nattribute: a many to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a octahedron
  5. Lattribute: a recursive many to one relationship describing the association between two icosahedrons and one icosahedron
  6. Mattribute: a recursive one to one relationship describing the association between two dodecahedrons

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.

  1. Energy: a three dimensional coordinate system
  2. Time: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and two four dimensional coordinate systems
  3. Ion: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and one six dimensional coordinate system
  4. Gas: a connection between two three dimensional coordinate systems and one eight dimensional coordinate system
  5. Liquid: a connection between two twelve dimensional coordinate system and one twelve dimensional coordinate system
  6. Solid: a connection between two twenty dimensional coordinate systems

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:

  1. Pattern: Father
  2. Battern:  Hold
  3. Attern: Give
  4. Nattern: Birth
  5. Lattern: Milk
  6. Mattern: Mother


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:

  1. Eye: detect events
  2. Ear: detect pressures
  3. Nose: detect plasmas
  4. Throat: detect molecules
  5. Jaw: detect organics
  6. Body: detect inorganics


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.

  1. Eye: Who: Identification
  2. Ear: What: Objectification
  3. Nose: Where: Location
  4. Throat: When: Chronation
  5. Jaw: Why: Rationation
  6. Body: How: Function

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:

  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. RED:  JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
  6. ORANGE: BODY:  CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.


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.


Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Design: The Boyd Pyramid


Colonel John Boyd, who made his OODA Loop famous, was concerned with process, not perpective.  If he was he may have come up with the above diagram.  John was a fighter pilot in the Korean War.  He spent the rest of his life trying to understand and explain why he came back from his tours alive.  He was attempting to explain how to design survival.

Many designers are averse to the military and it is to their detriment.  For them I have to suggest participating in Emergency Management when the Incident Command System (ICS) is being applied.  Crisis eliminates any room for concensus or debate.

Part of my life involved hunting.  Also something many designers are averse to.  However, hunting taught me what John Boyd was trying to teach Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine so they would come home.  No video game can teach you what being in the field with a projectile weapon can teach you:

  1. Observation is the acquisition and recognition of targets.  In design this is detecting to find and fiat.  Art and Science.
  2. Orientation is compensating for climate and terrain.  In design this is designing to feel and fit.  Design and Engineering.
  3. Decision is choosing your operation and your weapon.  In design this is developing to function and form.  Skills and Tools.
  4. Action is either maneuvering or firing.  In design this is deploying to forum and foot.  Business and Market.

As you proceed through the process, your options are continually narrowing.  If your options are not narrowing you have recommenced the process at the same or another scale.

Your success not only depends on this sequence, but upon the speed you are able to execute it.  If you are able to cycle faster than your competition, they are acting on conditions that have already changed.

Design: Buddhist Framework and Czerepak Framework


Buddhism’s “Eightfold Path” is a thoroughly thought out system that addresses all the interrogatives. In this post I will give a brief elaboration of what I mean.

In my work with the Czerepak Framework I presented the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Found and Fiat

Divergent Thinkng

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fashion and Foot

Now, I am going to take the above structure and apply it to the Buddhist Framework, The Eight Fold Path. Let’s look at the path as it is first:

  1. Right View
  2. Right Intention
  3. Right Speech
  4. Right Action
  5. Right Livelihood
  6. Right Effort
  7. Right Mindfulness
  8. Right Concentration

Buddhism states that there is no clear order, but I disagree. Now let’s reorder it according to the Czerepak Framework:

Trivergent Thinking


Right View

Right view simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.


Right Concentration

Right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

Divergent Thinking


Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualise sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualisation in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.


Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

Univergent Thinking


Right Action

Right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.


Right Speech

Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

Convergent Thinking


Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one’s living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.


Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

As you can see, although there some minor variation in order, there is a very solid correlation with the Czerepak Framework as a whole. Whether it was a man called Buddha or a collection of person’s who composed this path, it is obvious that it is a complete system framework.

I want to give credit to for their high quality presentation of philosophies and religions and from who I quoted the text on Buddhism.


Design: Judean Framework and Czerepak Framework


Judaism’s “God’ Promise to Abram” is a thoroughly thought out system that addresses all the interrogatives. In this post I will give a brief elaboration of what I mean.

In my work with the Czerepak Framework I presented the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinkng

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

Now, I am going to take the above structure and apply it to the Judean Framework, God’s Promise to Abram.  Let’s look at the passage as it is first:

Leave your country,
your people
and your father’s household
and go to the land I will show you
I will make you into a great nation
And I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and
You will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And whoever curses you I will curse;
And all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.

Now let’s reorder it according to the Czerepak Framework:

Trivergent Thinking


I will make you into a great nation


I will make your name great

Divergent Thinking


go to the land I will show you


Leave your country,
your people
your father’s household

Univergent Thinking


I will bless you;
You will be a blessing.


I will bless those who bless you,
And whoever curses you I will curse;

Convergent Thinking


will be blessed through you


all peoples on earth

As you can see, although there some minor variation in order, there is a very solid correlation with the Czerepak Framework as a whole.  Whether it was a man called Abram or a collection of person’s who composed this promise, it is obvious that it is a complete system framework.


Design: Christian Framework and Czerepak Framework


Christianity’s “The Lord’s Prayer” is a thoroughly thought out system that addresses all the interrogatives. In this post I will give a brief elaboration of what I mean.

In my work with the Czerepak Framework I presented the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinkng

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

Now, I am going to take the above structure and apply it to the Christian Framework, The Lord’s Prayer.  Let’s look at the passage first:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.

Now let’s order it according to the Czerepak Framework:

Trivergent Thinking


Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,


your will be done,

Divergent Thinking


on earth


as in heaven.

Univergent Thinking


Give us today our daily bread.


Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.

Convergent Thinking


Save us from the time of trial


and deliver us from evil.

As you can see, although there some minor variation in order, there is a very solid correlation with the Czerepak Framework as a whole.  Whether it was a man called Jesus or a collection of person’s who composed this prayer, it is obvious that it is a complete system framework.


Universe: History Rhymes


In a Forum interview by Michael Krasny of NPR with Futurist Paul Saffo brought to my attention in a blog by Tim Brown of IDEO, Paul quotes Mark Twain who said, “History does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.”

My work on the Czerepak Framework is an effort to look back as far as possible to find the rhymes of the history of systems and out of it has come the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinking

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

I have adopted the above process for my company, Cognitary, Inc.,  and call it “Cognitary Stratus”.  It is both a methodology and, when extended to additional dimensions, a framework for designing a system.


My usage of the root “verto” with the prefixes “tri-“, “di-“, “uni-” and “con-” are intended to create new terms to deal with a four dimensional perspective (not three) of systems.  The eight sub-forms of thinking correspond to the eight interrogatives:

  1. Why: Freedom
  2. Who: Fiat
  3. When: Future
  4. Where: Flow
  5. How: Function
  6. What: Form
  7. How Much: Fruition
  8. How Many: Fulfillment

These rhymes and sub-rhymes are the stratus of all systems and all systems design.  Together they are the basis of Cognitary Stratus.


Universe: Czerepak Framework R0.2

I have been thinking about the terms “convergent” and “divergent” in Tim Brown of IDEO’s Design Thinking and realized that they were products of planar (2 dimensional) thinking.  This has lead me to alter my definitions of what convergent and divergent are and to also redefine “vergent” and add “trivergent”.  I also realized that the convergence point is at the center of the ellipsoid and each verge (radius) point is separate and distinct.


Converge, diverge, verge and triverge all come from the same Latin root “verto”, to turn out.  All of the polyhedron vertexes are representations of the intersections of radii with the surface of not a sphere, but an ellipsoid.  Therefore each vertex is a unique dimension or radius.  However, there is one thing that is still not recognized.


Roll, Pitch and Yaw ellipses alone are an incorrect representation of orientation in space because they fail to include orientation relative to the observer.  Roll, Pitch and Yaw are flat earth concepts.  You cannot represent an ellipsoid with three radii.  The minimum radial representation of an ellipsoid requires four points on the surface of the ellipsoid.  The tetrahedroid is the minimal representation of the inscription of an ellipsoid.


The above three ellipse object and four ellipse object are both ellipsoids, the only difference between them and the three ellipse ellipsoid above them is the perspective–they have been rotated in space.  Using the four dimensional representation gives us the table below:


While I was illustrating the above table it became apparent to me that it accurately reflected  John Boyd’s OODA Loop.  It also became apparent to me that the OODA Loop could be conceputally simplified to:

  1. OBSERVE: Range
  2. ORIENT: Direction
  3. DECIDE:  Elevation
  4. ACT: Fire

The OODA Loop or the Czerepak Framework cycle can be graphed as a simple two dimensional sine vertice:


Now, that’s all sure and fine and it provides a way of thinking with a minimum number of variables.  However, if we think about John Boyd as a military combatant it is not the right set of variables.  The model has to cater to the following needs:

  1. OBSERVE: Who and Why
  2. ORIENT: Where and When
  3. DECIDE: What and How
  4. ACT: How Many and How Much

Suddenly, it becomes obvious that in a system involving living organisms there is added complexity and layers of consciousness.  The following table is my first attempt to illustrate this:


The yellow row and column headers are what is of importance.  The naming of the white cells will have to come later.  Obviously, there are considerable changes in the order of the columns and rows, but I believe John Boyd is closer to the truth about the process than anyone else.  Therefore I am redefining everyone else’s concept to fit his.  What is important about the table is that in the columns each icon represents a set of ellipses that one ellipse at a time intersects with the ellipses above it to converge on a subset that is the target.


Colonel Boyd’s model was simple.  Deviations from it are based more upon misunderstanding than anything else.  This is the fundamental System Development Lifecycle (SDLC):

  2. ORIENT = INSERT = ANALYSIS = CLIMATE and TERRAIN = TACTIC = DIVERGENT THINKING = When and Where are the exceptions?
  3. DECIDE = UPDATE = DESIGN = FUNCTION and FORM = OPERATION = VERGENT THINKING = How and What are the exceptions?
  4. ACT = DELETE = DEVELOP = QUALITY and QUANTITY = GOAL = CONVERGENT THINKING = How Much and How Many are the exceptions?

“What are we deleting?” You may ask.  We are deleting exceptions that existed in the previous system whatever that system may have been.  We are never dealing with a non-existent system.  We are SELECTing a set of exceptions the current system does not handle.  We are INSERTing those exceptions into the current system.  We are UPDATEing the system to handle those exceptions.  We are DELETEing those exceptions from the system.  I still have to work to reconsider the names for each of the cells, but I am converging on that.  The differences between methodologies are really ones of scale and nothing else.  It’s how many exceptions do you intend to address at a time.

This effort is requiring a lot of work and rework because I have never dealt with eight interrogatives before, however the fit is conceptually the best I have ever had.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces


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.

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

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

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.



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:



Here’s the Universe after:


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


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.







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”.


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.