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 »

What’s Right with the Zachman Framework

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC – 531 BC)

I just finished reading Graeme Simsion’s article What’s Wrong With The Zachman Framework? and found his opinions to be quite shallow.  His opinions show a limited exposure to the basic interrogatives–only as John Zachman has portrayed them–and a lack of knowledge that every modeling language uses combinations of the interrogatives to convey meaning.  The interrogatives are rarely dealt with individually and even Zachman makes this mistake in his examples regarding the focuses.

First, Simsion attacks the limitation of six perspectives.  He advocates adding a volume and cost perspective to the interrogatives.  He doesn’t realize that volume and value are irrelevant because the six interrogatives are scalable.  Second, the architecture metaphor is challenged.  Simsion never abstracted Zachman’s model.  If he had he would realize that the architectural metaphor conceals what the six perspectives are actually about:  Entities, Relationships, Attributes, Constraints, Definitions and Manipulations.  Third, Simsion claims there is no evidence of the plausibility of the Zachman Framework.  He fails to recognize that every modeling system is using the interrogatives to only partial effect and deriving significant benefits in quantity and quality of product.  There at this time is no product that integrates all of the interrogatives in the Zachman Framework.  Simsion also criticizes the framework for his inability to incorporate object oriented projects into it.  The reason for this is because he doesn’t realize that objects must be treated as attributes not as entities as laid down by Chris Date in his Third Manifesto.

zachmanframeworkabstract03.jpg

The truth is the interrogatives have a foundation that goes back over three thousand years across every human culture.  A human system has six scalable characteristics:  Who, What, When, Where, How and Why.  A non-human system has four scalable characteristics:  What, When, Where and How.  I don’t recall anyone asking Einstein about Volume or Cost when he wrote E=mc².

Simsion’s article is a tribute to ignorance.  John Zachman’s interpretation only scratches the surface.

STL: Structured Thinking Language R0.3

I had a bit of an epiphany today. What I realized is that by structuring Structured Thinking Language as I have, everything can evolve as lists. Each VERB is simply the addition of another list to the NOUN you are working with.

Six Verbs: CREATE, RELATE, REPORT, RECORD, AFFORD, ENGAGE

Six Nouns: MOTIVE, LOCALE, OBJECT, METHOD, PERSON, MOMENT

Four Adjectives: INDUCED, DEDUCED and IMPLICIT, EXPLICIT

CREATE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
     NOUN
        (   nounname_1,
            ...,
            nounname_n
        );       

RELATE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
     NOUN.nounname TO
                (    NOUN_1.nounname_1,
                     ...,
                     NOUN_n.nounname_n
                );         

REPORT INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname
                (    attributename_1,
                     ...,
                     attributename_n
                );       

RECORD INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname.attributename
                (    constraintname_1,
                     ...,
                     constraintname_n
                );         

AFFORD INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
    NOUN.nounname
                (    SELECT
                     INSERT,
                     UPDATE,
                     DELETE
                )
                ON
                (   NOUN_1.nounname_1,
                    ...,
                    NOUN_n.nounname_n
                );         

ENGAGE INDUCED|DEDUCED IMPLICIT|EXPLICIT
SELECT|INSERT|UPDATE|DELETE

Obviously, it still needs work, but we can see where the Structured Thinking Language adds value to the design process. SQL does have it’s place in data manipulation. However, STL has a place in data definition. See the related posts for background information on this syntax.

Related Posts:

Structured Thinking Language R0.3

Systema: CI-DIKW Hierarchy Definitions

I have been wanting to clearly define each of the terms Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom for some time. I have thought about Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Bases, Knowledge Management, Data Management and other disciplines and have decided on the following simple definitions:

  1. Wisdom is the ability to model entities in a system. This is extrapolative.
  2. Knowledge is the ability to model relationships in a system. This is interpolative.
  3. Information is the ability to model attributes in a system. This is intrapolative.
  4. Data is the ability to model constraints in a system. This is extrapolitive.
  5. Intuition is the ability to model definitions in a system. This is interpolitive.
  6. Communication is the ability to model manipulations to and from a system. This is intrapolitive.

I have been forced to come up with the root “polite” to describe a single input value as opposed to “polar” which is a collection of input values. But what I want to point out is there is no automated tool capable of creating new models of communication, intuition, data, information, knowledge or wisdom, as simply defined as this is, that can be regarded as “intelligent.”
The above six perspectives affect the following focuses or modeling languages:

  1. Motivation Modeling
  2. Network Modeling
  3. Data Modeling
  4. Process Modeling
  5. Person Modeling
  6. Time Modeling

The perspectives CIDIKW and focuses MNDPPT make a thirty-six cell framework I call the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. What I am pointing out here is that no system is simply one dimensional. Human systems are six dimensional at least. There is also a meta-layer, the model, and a data-layer, the database, for each dimension. The modeling systems and databases for all the dimensions are still very primitive and incompatible. Slowly, we are getting there, but there is more than enough work out there for anyone who wants to come up with a consistent modeling language. And if you do, you will have the foundation for a true AI.

Six Hats, Six Coats and Sun Tzu

suntzu.jpg

From Sun Tzu on the The Art of War

I. LAYING PLANS

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.

8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.

9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.

11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them
not will fail.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:–

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed!

16. While heading the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules.

17. According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one’s plans.

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Sun Tzu truly was one of the greatest minds in human history. He knew that a war was a collision between two systems. He had a firm grasp of the military as a system and had reduced it to its fundamental components.

  1. MOTIVE: Moral Law. Vision and Mission.
  2. LOCALE: Earth. Terrain.
  3. OBJECT: Discipline. Integrity.
  4. METHOD: Method. Training.
  5. PERSON: Commander. Organization.
  6. MOMENT: Heaven. Climate.

The correlation between the Six Coats and the Five Fundamental Factors is complete. Let’s take a look at Sun Tzu using the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework:

suntzuperspectives02.jpg

A nice fit.

Six Hats, Six Coats and Sun Tzu

The Need for a New Language

I have been searching the web looking for modeling standards for each of the Zachman focuses in an effort to explore the feasibility of creating the Structured Thinking Language.

zachmanabstract.jpg

I am finding that my abstract (above) holds more promise to create an integrated modeling language than anything currently out there. The reason for this is the modeling languages I have encountered, all of them, have to at one point or another incorporate more than one focus to be of any value. In other words, the modeling languages are multi-focus views.

The Business Motivation Model by the Business Rules Group is not the solution I foresee as meeting the needs of Business Motivation Modelers. I agree with The Business Rules Manifesto, but I feel the Model is more a generic structure than a suitable modeling language or notation. What it does offer is a common vocabulary for business rule structures. However, rules are the atoms of motivation and the Business Motivation Model does not address that atomicity in a way I see as satisfactory.

We have to create a single language that addresses all six focuses at once. There is not a current language up to the task.