Creative Commons: Proposed Protection Categories


Right now, Facebook members are campaigning for Facebook/Creative Commons integration.

I fully support this.

I think facebooks credibility would go through the roof.

I think creative commons would become the defacto standard of content protection.

I think everyone on the web would exercise freedom of expression with more confidence knowing they own their expression.

However, I think creative commons should change its conditions to make it more accessible.

I propose the following, based on the International System of Units

who: anonymous/originator/derivator

what: unit/series/collection

when: once/duration/forever

where: private/group/public

why: loss/balance/profit

how: as-is/constructive/destructive

how much: one/two/many

That should satisfy everyone.

I have forwarded this proposal to Creative Commons.


Systema: Operation, Tactic, Strategy




Icons: Systema Iconic Language: Part I

In this series of posts I will be exploring the concept of an iconic language built upon the vocabulary I have been incrementally creating as part of the Systema Framework.

Abstract Relationships


Concrete Relationships


I have worked with icons before and this is a revisit of some of those ideas as well as modifications.

Apport Icon Set

The Apport icon set defines the entities that can exist in a system:


Accord Icon Set

The Accord Icon set defines the relationships that can exist in a system:


Below is a cross product of the Apport and Accord Icon sets:


Record Icon Set

I am sure that the icon set below is familiar if you have followed my blog.


Note that the cross product below is only for the entities themselves and not for their relationships.


Properly utilized, an iconic language would allow you to build sentences out of the individual icons interactively.

I plan to continue to think about this subject further and will update as I go along.

Below are links to web pages and pdf documents I have read so far on the topic:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links


Parable of the Watchmakers

There once were two watchmakers, named Hora and Tempus, who made very fine watches. The phones in their workshops rang frequently; new customers were constantly calling them. However, Hora prospered while Tempus became poorer and poorer. In the end, Tempus lost his shop. What was the reason behind this?

The watches consisted of about 1000 parts each. The watches that Tempus made were designed such that, when he had to put down a partly assembled watch (for instance, to answer the phone), it immediately fell into pieces and had to be reassembled from the basic elements.

Hora had designed his watches so that he could put together subassemblies of about ten components each. Ten of these subassemblies could be put together to make a larger sub- assembly. Finally, ten of the larger subassemblies constituted the whole watch. Each subassembly could be put down without falling apart.


For the longest time I have been playing with interrogatives and associations.  Now, I think I finally have a complete representation and taxonomy.

Abstractly, it looks like the following:


Concretely, it appears as follows:


As I mentioned in my earlier post, I was not satisfied with a six interrogative, four association model.  Consequently, I worked to resolve this and came up with the table above with the interrogative columns (seven hats) and the associative rows (seven coats).  I also came up with the data model below:


My hypothesis is, used correctly, the above data model can address all relational/dimensional requirements.

Related Posts:


Tonight I broke out the dictionary and began examining my Latin roots. Spurred on by the term “datum” I decided to go all the way and produce an internally consistent set of terminology for a system:

I have a confession to make.  I abused the Latin a bit.

I recently learned that to enable philosophers of all languages to exchange their work Latin is used as the standard. In working to refine my understanding of system concepts I can see the rationale behind using a language with a thoroughly refined vocabulary and grammar. Dead languages do have utility.

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

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.

Tetrad Theories

Here is a table to describe some of the tetrads we have discussed so far in this blog.


The first column is our friend Structured Query Language (SQL). The second column is the four components of physiological and psychological health. The third column is the tetrad of McLuhan’s Laws of Media. The fourth column are the Zachman Framework’s four perspectives. The fifth column are the first four Structured Development Lifecycle (SDLC) phases.

The rows in the table correlate the similar facets of each of the tetrads. I will go into detail in a later post. How does energy, matter, location and event correlate? How do the Secrets of the Universe of Discourse correlate? How does data, information, knowledge and wisdom correlate? How does colon classification correlate?

Take a moment and let yourself stretch.

Deeper Than McLuhan

I have read all of McLuhan’s books over the span of a few months. One thing to point out is that McLuhan did not say “The Medium is the Message”. McLuhan said, “The Medium is the Massage”. The medium was the cause of change, reformation and revolution not the message.

Another thing that stands out is that the scope of McLuhan’s system had only two dimensions where one could be the other. That is fine, but it is extensible to a six dimensional framework.


What I mean by this is that any of Zachman’s six focuses (who, what, when, where, why, how) can be the message contained within the medium. This agrees with McLuhan’s four laws of Media Theory. More simply put, each of Zachman’s focuses can be a system its own right and any system can be the container for another lesser system. The system is the massage. Or the message.

I will look further at how McLuhan’s four laws apply to Zachman in later posts.

System Security

John Zachman’s use of the basic interrogatives to define a system lends itself to alternative analysis. One of these cases is system security. When it comes to security there are only four acts you can commit: Select, Insert, Update and Delete. However, you can commit these acts for each of the Zachman Framework Focuses: Data, Network, Motive, Process, People, Time and each of the Zachman Perspectives: Conceptual, Contextual, Logical, Physical, Mechanical, Instantial. What you have as a product is not just a security table, but a security cube. Below is an example of a security table defining 24 possible violations:


A security cube would define 4 x 6 x 6 = 264 possible violations. It should be added that violations do not always work in isolation. For example spyware is a procedural insert and data selection. How many cells in the security cube would be affected if a plane crashed into one of your facilities?

It is also important to note that preventing snooping (or sniffing) is often an effective way to prevent the other three manipulation operations.  What they can’t see can’t hurt you.