The Brain: ZenUniverse 4.0

“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

I have been looking at the Platonic Solids and thinking about how they correlate to the five senses. I thought about the left and right hemispheres of the brain and realized that each of the Platonic Solids should be truncated to represent the right hemisphere. Now I had ten solids to work with. I worked backward from this and recognized I had to create a separate left right pairing of each of the senses to represent the brain correctly five on the left and five on the right. I have to create pairs of senses, trios of senses, quartets of senses and a quintet of senses. This is because these are ways we learn. We learn most when our senses are learning as a quintet.  This is why complete immersion in the environment we are to learn about is so effective.

This is a major revision of all my previous work.  However, I feel it provides a much more robust sensory model.

“To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton’s legendary statement was the premise of my new design.  I saw there were five Platonic Solids and as a reaction they would produce the five Truncated Platonic Solids.  This would influence all the components of the Solids.

Radeo

Dadeo

Radeons.  They are radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in the Platonic Solids.  These are your right  origins.

Tradeo

Ideons.  They are Ideal emissions which are temporal radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in Truncated Platonic Solids.  This is your left percetual spatial origin.

Audeo

Audeons.  They are audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the faces of the Platonic Solids.  This is your right temporal plane.

Mudeo

Mudeons.  They are musical patterns which are temporal audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left temporal planes.

Nadeo

Nadeons.  They are nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Platonic Solids faces.  These are your right parietal arcs.

Gudeo

Gudions. They are gustal intensities which are temporal nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left parietal arcs.

Tadeo

Mates are Tadeons.  They tactal points.  These are the number of intersectin edges for each Platonic Solid’s polytope.

Modeo

ReMates are Bodeons.  They are Basal points which are temporal tactal points.  These are the number of intersecting edges for each Truncated Platonic Solid’s polytopes.

Pyradeo

The pyramids contain the space of the radeons combined with the audeons.  Obtuse triangular pyramid, Right square pyramid, Right triangular pyramid, Right pentagonal pyramid, Acute triangular pyramid.

Ideo

Imadeons.  They are imadical solids.  These are a cound of the number of faces on the Regular Solids.

Video

Videons they are visical solids which are temporal imagical solids.  This is the the count of the number of truncation faces on the surface of the Truncated Platonic Solids.

Stateo Ateo Summary

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. ORANGE: BODY: CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.
6. RED: MIND: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.

Link:

• The Brain: ZenUniverse 5.o

• The Brain: ZenUniverse 3.o
• The Brain: ZenUniverse 2.0
• The Brain: ZenUniverse 1.0

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

ZenEntity

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”.

ZenAssociations

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.

ZenPhases

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.

ZenStates

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

ZenSensors

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

ZenInterrogatives

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.

ZenHemisphere

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.

ZenBrain

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.

Link:

• The Brain: ZenUniverse 4.o
• The Brain: ZenUniverse 3.0
• The Brain: ZenUniverse 2.0

Databases: Structured Associative Model

For years now I have been struggling with Relational DBMS technology and Associative DBMS technology attempting to get them to do what I want.  In my first efforts, Relational models were structurally restrictive, Dimensional models were unable to grow organically, EAV models are incompatible with relational architecture.  I came upon Simon Williams Associative Model of Data and although enthralled with its potential I found it too had limitations.  It was semi-structured and allowed for too much flexibility.  25 years in Information Technology had taught me that there was a single standard classification system for setting up databases not a plethora of ontologies.  I was determined to find the theoretical structure and was not concerned with hardware limitations, database architecture, abilties of current query languages or any other constraints.

The Associative Model of Data had made the difference in liberating me from Relational and Dimensional thinking.  A traditional ERD of the Associative Model of Data I at first thought would look like the following:

Basically what you have is a Schema composed of Nodes with Node Associations through Verbs and Associations with Nodes Attributions through Verbs. The range of Node Entities, Verb Entities, Association Entities and Attribution Entities are endless.  As well the population of the Schema has an unlimited dataset of natural key values.  I have been challenged by Relational database specialists and SQL experts regarding the viability of this model within current limitations, however their arguments are irrelevant.  What is important is the logical validity of the model, not the physical validity.

After receiving the criticism I decided to revisit the model in order to simplify it.  I went over Simon William’s explanations of his model and its application and found I could reduce it to the following:

This was profoundly simpler and better reflected the Associative Model of Data’s Architecture.  But even with this simpler architecture I was not satisfied.  I felt that the Associatve Model although giving the benefit of explicitly defining the associations was a tabula rasa.  Research has shown that tabula rasa’s are contrary to the behavior of the finite physical universe.  There is an intermediate level of nature and nuture.  And this is what I sought to model.

When I first encountered the Zachman Framework, something about it struck me in a very profound way.  I could see there was something fundamental in its description of systems, however I felt that the metaphors that John Zachman used were wrong because they themselves lacked a fundamental simplicity.  The consequences of this were that those who studied under Zachman ultimately could not agree on what he was talking about.  Also the “disciplines” that Zachman’s Framework generated were continually reinventing the wheel.  Zachman had created a world of vertical and horizontal stovepipes.  To further the confusion Zachman refused to conceive of a methodology based upon his framework.  Consequently, there was no way to determine what the priorities were in creating a system.  I call this the Zachman Clusterfuck.

Zachman’s work spawned years of work for me.  I could see that systems had a fundamental structure, but I could not agree with Zachman.  Focuses and Perspectives were useless terms.  The construction metaphor was useless.  I read anything I could get my hands on dealing with systems, methodologies, modeling, networks and a broad range of other literature across the disciplines.  Out of this came a set of conclusions:

1. There were a fundamental set of Noun Entities
2. There were a fundamental set of Verb Entities
3. There were a fundamental set of Association Entities
4. There was a clear order in which the Nouns were addressed
5. There was a clear order in which the Verbs were executed
6. The structure was fractal
7. The content was a scale-free network

I made some attempts at creating the vocabulary and experimented with this new Structured Thinking Language.  However, the real break came when I worked with John Boyd’s OODA Loop:

The OODA Loop revealed a governing structure for the methodology and guided my way into the following hybrid relational/dimensional/associational model I call the Structured Associative Model of Data:

One of the key things this model demonstrates is the sequence followed by the OODA Loop.  Starting from the top, each dimension set spawns the next.  Choices are created from the dimensions.  There is no centrism to this model which is an inherent flaw in Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), Event based architecture, Data centric architecture, Goal-Directed Design, Rule based systems among others.  The stove pipes of Focuses and Pespectives disappear by reasserting a clear order of priorities and dependencies for achieving success.  The model also supports bottom up inductive as well as top down deductive sequencing.  This will make the system able to reconfigure to handle exceptions.

Some of the things I have learned in designing this model include the realization that unit defines datatype and that all measures are variable character string text.  This is because any displayed value is only a symbolic representation of the actual quantity.  If operations are to be performed on measures they are converted to the correct type as part of the operation.  I also recognized that Unit was necessary to define the scale and scalability of the system.  Further, it became apparent that analog calculations should not be practiced.  Every value should be treated as discrete and aggregated.

Another aspect of this system is the inclusion of currency and amount.  I have been critical of Zachman and academics for their hypocrisy regarding the economics of systems.  All systems have a cost and a benefit and they are measurable in currency.  Contrary to the reasoning of the majority, every decision is ultimately economic.

Tim Brown of IDEO has coined the term “Design Thinking” and has been toying with the concept for some time.  Many designers dwell on the two dimensional concept of divergence and convergence as modes of thought.  If we look at my model, divergence is the creation of choice while convergence is selection of choice.  There is no alteration or deletion of choice in my model as history is preserved.

Now what you have is a unencumbered framework with a clear methodological sequence.

Welcome to the Cognitary Universe.

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

Icons: The Czerepak Framework

Tearing apart the Zachman Framework has yielded great results.  I have identified the core nodes and links (we won’t use the terms entities and associations any more).  The new Nodes of the Czerepak Framework are:

1. Computers
2. Machines
3. Goals
4. Observers
5. Elements
6. Particles
7. Points
8. Events

The new Links are:

1. Operations
2. Processes
3. Rules
4. Names
5. Bonds
6. Quanta
7. Distances
8. Durations

If you look at the link icons you can see what I am hypothesizing as the optimum cardinality for each.  I am thinking about this from the perspective of the Platonic solids, R. Buckminster Fuller’s work, Stuart Koffman’s work with chaos theory and Boolean networks and Albert Einstein’s own love for geometry.

The set of icons created to this point are below:

Systema Framework Datatypes

A new insight that has come to me in working with the Systema Framework is the realization that datatypes are not chaotic or random.  Datatypes are specific to the column they are in.

1. Logic is restricted to Text attributing the interrogative
2. Organic is restricted to Integers attributing the cardinality
3. Heuristic is restricted to Boolean attributing the paths or sets
4. Pragmatic is restricted to Decimal attributing the metric
5. Chronic is restricted to Datetime attributing the event
6. Cosmic is restricted to Spatial attributing the node

The interesting thing is the framework is two dimensional.  This means that each of the six interrogatives is provided with each of the six datatypes in a structured fashion.

When you give this thought in this disciplined fashion, it becomes obvious that the Zachman Framework and the Systema Framework are inadequate to explain the complexity of datatypes we experience.  I will provide a solution in my next post.

Systema Framework: Structured Thinking Advances

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:

• I am abandoning the term entity for the term logos which is closer to the correct concept we are dealing with.  Logic deals with the logos (words) of reason versus the forms (things) of reality.
• I have found that de Bono lead me to realize that a relationship or association is not the correct term for these connections. The correct term is “directive” because the connector has a source.verb.target structure. Sun Tzu would call it a command. Ultimately, all people are directors not actors.
• The real genius of Zachman was creating a two dimensional framework where all his predecessors had only provided one dimension.
• “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Reaction is induction. Action is deduction. Thus a bottom up inductive process involves:
  • Reintuition, Renegation, Reobjection, Reposition, Redirection and Recreation
• While a top down deductive process involves:
  • Creation, Direction, Position, Objection, Negation and Intuition
• The finer points can be debated.
• I find the relational model is not best adapted to this framework. The associative model of data found at LazySoft is better equipped to meet the framework’s requirements.

Systema Framework Terms

Systema Framework Icons

Icon Definitions

CREATIVE Logic Logics

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 Logic Organics

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 Logic Methodics

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 Logic Pragmatics

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 Logic Cosmics

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 Logic Chronics

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 Organic Logics

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 Organic Organics

DIRECTOR are the director directions between director logos. In de Bono hats Directive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Command.

POSITOR Organic Methodics

POSITOR are the director methods applied to director forms. In de Bono hats Directive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Training.

OBJECTOR Organic Pragmatics

OBJECTOR are the director forms. In de Bono hats Directive objections. In Sun Tzu factors Command Discipline.

NEGATOR Organic Cosmics

NEGATOR is the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Terrain.

INTUITOR Organic Chronics

INTUITOR are the director triggers applied to the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Heavens.

CREATE Methodic Logics

CREATE is the methodic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Positive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Moral Law.

DIRECT Methodic Organics

DIRECT is the methodic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Positive directions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Command.

POSIT Methodic Methodics

POSIT is the methodic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Training.

OBJECT Methodic Pragmatics

OBJECT is the methodic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Training Discipline.

NEGATE Methodic Cosmics

NEGATE is the methodic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Terrain.

INTUIT Methodic Chronics

INTUIT is the methodic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATION Pragmatic Logics

CREATION are the pragmatic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Moral Law.

DIRECTION Pragmatic Organics

DIRECTION are the pragmatic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Command.

POSITION Pragmatic Methodics

POSITION are the pragmatic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Training.

OBJECTION Pragmatic Pragmatics

OBJECTION are the pragmatic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Discipline.

NEGATION Pragmatic Cosmics

NEGATION are the pragmatic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Terrain.

INTUITION Pragmatic Chronics

INTUITION are the pragmatic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATORY Cosmic Logics

CREATORY are the universe logos of the system. In de Bono hats Negative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Moral Law.

DIRECTORY Cosmic Organics

DIRECTORY are the univserse directions of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Directives. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Command.

POSITORY Cosmic Methodics

POSITORY are the universe methods of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Training.

OBJECTORY Cosmic Pragmatics

OBJECTORY are the universe forms of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Discipline.

NEGATORY Cosmic Cosmics

NEGATORY are the universe universe of the system. In de Bonos hats Negative Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Terrain.

INTUITORY Cosmic Chronics

INTUITORY are the universe triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Heavens.

CREATUM Chronic Logics

CREATUM are the chronic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Moral Law.

DIRECTUM Chronic Organics

DIRECTUM are the chronic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Command.

POSITUM Chronic Methodics

POSITUM are the chronic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Training.

OBJECTUM Chronic Pragmatics

OBJECTUM are the chronic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Discipline.

NEGATUM Chronic Cosmics

NEGATUM are the chronic universe of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Terrain.

INTUITUM Chronic Chronics

INTUITUM are the chronic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Heavens.

Systema: MixThirtySix – New Greek, New Icons, New Colors

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.

Systema: Some Basics

Chris Collins has written a good Introduction to the Zachman Framework that I recommend with a caution: I do not accept that John Zachman fully understands what he is talking about. What this means to me is I will be gradually divorcing myself from using the term Zachman Framework and use the term “Systema” instead. He himself acknowledges that he borrowed his concept from the six interrogatives and construction terminology and from all I’ve read I do not feel that John ever fully explored what he used indepth.

If he had he would have realized there is only one true dimension which are the six unities, which I borrow modified from Aristotle. Every new dimension is simply a repeat of the six unities.

My terminology continues to evolve:

1. Causus: Problem – The Mavin – provides niche – possibility
2. Cognitus: Hypothesis – The Connector – provides associations – compatibility
3. Artus: Method – The Salesman – provides purchase rationale – reliability
4. Datus: Apparatus – The Accountant – provides mass market – economy
5. Eventus: Result – The Secretary – provides delivery schedule – accessibility
6. Locus: Location – The Receptionist – provides product touchpoints – geography

This brings to mind The Innovator’s Dilemma and shows that the tipping point is between reliability and economy.

He would have also pointed out that there are only four fundamental verbs that can be performed on the six factors. I am still refining the icon design.

Systema: Mix Thirty-Six

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?

Related Post:

Systema: Seven Hats, Seven Links