phobiarchy: ruled by fear.
pathiarchy: ruled by illness.
ethiarchy: ruled by addiction.
agnoiarchy: ruled by ignorance.
antriarchy: ruled by courage.
engiearchy: ruled by health.
paraclesiarchy: ruled by difference.
eidiarchy: ruled by intelligence.
I have been a data designer now for over 25 years. And after all of that I finally understand what it is I do for a living. I classify.
There are really only about twelve things you really can do in life.
Let’s mix a little Latin and Anglo-Saxon:
1. RECREATE – Archics- gowns – astric, stellic and planic
2. REEQUATE – Scinics – knowns – static, electric and magnetic
3. RENOVATE – Signics – trends – aeric, atomic and chemic
4. REGULATE – Engic – trains – terric, mechanic and hydric
5. REPEAT – Technics – skills – sidic ,desic and curic
6. RECORD – Clerics – desks – indic, findic and sortic
7. RESPOND – Servics – serves – sertic, altric and delic
8. RESTOCK – Prodics – prods – stantic, storic and trievic
9. RETAIL – Markics – sells – quare, qualic and quantic
10. RESPEND – Pursics – chases – evic, costic and benefic
11. REFUND – Bancs – loans – profic, debic and credic
12. REGENT – Regics – rules – natric, metric and petric
Ultimately we are all stamp collectors.
I have been reflecting on the concept of creation and the concept of evolution for the past week. For most of history humanity has thought about a first cause and has attributed it to different gods. Gods were creators. In the west after a 1300 year dark age, around 1500AD, the renaissance led humanity to democratize creation. Humans took creativity away from gods and attributed to themselves as well. Then Charles Darwin came along.
Darwin had an even more humbling proposition. There was no creation. And as modern minds have considered Darwin’s theory they have been finding that there may be no origin, no direction, no destination and no constants to the universe at all. There is only change.
Until now humans have been clinging to the belief that they are creative. However, as we learn more about nature and human beings we are finding that humans have to accept that we are a product of and no different than the evolution that produced us. There is no origin, direction, destination or constants in our lives either. Anyone who claims certainty is no less gambling on life than anyone who accepts uncertainty.
Everything and everyone is unique and unintelligent. There are no creators and no designs. We have to democratize evolution.
We have to accept that we are all here for no other reason than evolution produced us. Darwin himself did not understand that there is no such thing as fitness. No one is more fit than anyone else because existence is arbitrary. Control is an illusion. All of humanity could cease to exist in a moment due to an unknown cosmic event.
So, when I look at people taking credit for anything or giving credit to a god, I am not persuaded at all. Because I know that they and all they produce as well as I and all I produce have no origin, no direction, no destination and no constants. Everyone is an impostor.
I have no need for guilt. No need for forgiveness. I can live as I wish. Quality and quantity of life are subjective. The motives and organization, events and locations, services and products, units and measures, currency and prices of life are arbitrary. Art and science, design and engineering, craft and trade, commerce and market are arbitrary. For all we do to alleviate our suffering there is always a new form of suffering to take its place.
Evolution is neutral. Beyond our understanding and beyond our judgment.
That was Job’s true lesson.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Do you want to be creative?
Related:
Tim Brown, Design Thinking Blog
Tim Brown, “Strategy by Design”, Fast Company
Tim Brown, “How I Work”, Fortune
Tim Brown, “Innovation Through Design Thinking”, MIT World Video
Vodpod videos no longer available.
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:
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:
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:
The new Links are:
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:
Considering the definition of strategy that I have adopted in part 2 of this discussion, I also want to adopt a new definition for “tactics” and “operations”. The definitions would be as follows:
goals: the beginning, intermediate and terminal states of a system.
rules: the navigational and non-navigational processes relating goals.
strategy: a single path to a terminal goal observing the rules.
motivation: the complete set of strategies for a system.
tactics: the actual path followed during an actual session by a user or users.
Note: I have changed the definition of operation and added result based on the comment by Rita Heinlein. – relationary
operation: the actual non-navigational rule with parameters found in a tactical path.
result: the actual goal state achieved by an operation found in a tactical path.
With all the above considered I would suggest that information architecture be renamed to motivational modeling.
Part 1 is here.
strategy (n)
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
goal (n)
1.the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.
rule (n)
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.
An extensive form game is a specification of a game in game theory. This form represents the game as a tree. Each node (called a decision node) represents every possible state of play of the game as it is played. Play begins at a unique initial node, and flows through the tree along a path determined by the players until a terminal node is reached, where play ends and payoffs are assigned to all players. Each non-terminal node belongs to a player; that player chooses among the possible moves at that node, each possible move is an edge leading from that node to another node.
It should be noted that even in a game with a finite number of moves (steps) there are generally countless strategies (paths).
Looking at the Extensive Form diagram above and considering the definitions, we can see that the game above has two players: 1 and 2. The numbers by every non-terminal node indicate to which player that decision node belongs. The numbers by every terminal node represent the payoffs to the players (e.g. 2,1 represents a payoff of 2 to player 1 and a payoff of 1 to player 2). The labels by every edge of the graph are the name of the action that that edge represents.
I would like to play with the terminology. I would call the nodes “goals”, I would call the edges “rules” and the paths I would call “strategies”. Goals are actually states of the system and the rules are actually processes. Thinking about it this way makes me think of information architecture and website architecture. Browsing and navigation in this case becomes a one player strategy where the website provides the goals and rule set. However, the design process of the system is to determine the goal set and rule set of the player and provide a “natural” or even more optimal set of strategies for the user to follow.
Part 3 is here.
relationary.wordpress.com 