## Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.

Associations

are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety.  But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set.  The lowest order particles are event and point.  They are one dimensional particles.  All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

## Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

## What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

## Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

## Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

## 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.

## Icons: Systema

I finally put together a broad range of icons for the System Elements. Remember Causus (Why), Ductus (Who), Modus (How), Datus (What), Eventus (When), Locus (Where):

## The Brain: Hardwiring and Softwiring

I’m just finishing a very fine book by Steven Pinker, The Languange Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language

and several years ago I read Donald D. Hoffman’s book, Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. Both books deal with the same subject: What part of our minds are hardwired–instinct–and what parts of our minds are softwired–reason. It is a truly fascinating exploration.

Stephen Pinker in The Language Instinct very thoroughly explores all the aspects of spoken language. He discusses how broken pidgin languages are turned into grammatically rich creoles by children. He explains that whether a person learns a language or not they can have complex thought he calls Mentalese. He explains Chomsky’s concept of a Universal Grammar and how, with language, learning does not cause mental complexity, but mental complexity causes learning. He reveals that children have an acute sense of the morphology of words and rapidly acquire vocabulary as listemes because of the nature of the relationship between child, adult and reality. The perception of speech as well as the physical production of speech is explored. How we derive meaning from language rejects the technical concept of packets being transmitted and received for a much more subjective process of interpretation. The ability of children to learn language is treated as an evolutionary trade off existing only long enough to adopt the tribes language and then shutdown to make way for other special priorities. The “Language Organ” or region of the brain that is responsible for speech is narrowed down. The chain of being is pushed aside for the bush of evolution to reveal that hundreds of thousands of generations existed for language and homo sapiens sapiens to evolve separate from all our other primate cousins. The difference between living spoken language is separated from living written language, the discipline required for each and the fact that language is never in decay. Finally the relativism of the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) or tabula rasa as proposed by Margaret Mead is rejected, Pinker takes sides with the Evolutionary Psychologists stating that environment alone cannot create the complexity of the mind, the mind must have many complex modules to be able to learn from the environment at all. He discusses Donald E. Brown’s Universal Person (UP) inspired by Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG). Finally, Pinker tries to define the modules of the human mind and here I get excited as I find I am able to fit them easily into the Six Hats, Six Coats model. Pinker says that language is a system and extrapolates to say humans are a system of both hardwiring and softwiring.

Hoffman’s book deals with an aspect of mind that more easily subscribes to the module concept than language because it is a much more detached, empirical exercise to test for the visual hardwiring that humans have through the use of visual illusions. Hoffman takes us through many aspects of vision such as facial recognition, edge and shadow and color and the perceptual development of children to reveal what appears to be hardwired and softwired. He concludes with a relativistic statement, but I think that he chooses this because of the political desire of scientists to distance themselves from the eugenics of the first half of the 20th century instead of an objective conclusion that, yes, we have a complex module in our brain specifically hardwired and softwired for vision as used by our species. In other words, when presented with the depth of Steven Pinker’s work compared to the breadth of Donald Hoffman’s work, I believe that we do have a vision instinct.

All in all I believe that Steven Pinker’s and Donald Hoffman’s work is revealing that humans minds are far more than just an empty neural net at birth. That in fact there is an evolved complex predefined structure that humans make use of through the learning stages of childhood to understand their environment that diminishes to adult levels at puberty. Consequently, no form of Artificial Intelligence will succeed unless it also comes with a robust collection of Artificial Instincts.

Related Article:

## Systema: Manipulating Relationships

In the last post we looked at entity manipulations. Now let’s look at the next row in the Six Hats Six Coats Framework:

Relationships are all about communication and are subject to the same manipulations as a communication link. We also established earlier that there are six relationship types:

So how do we manipulate these relationships?

The first relationship manipulation is the SELECT:

The SELECT manipulation “snoops” or “eavesdrops” on the relationship between two instances. The relationship is untouched.

The second manipulation is the INSERT:

The INSERT manipulation “throws” or “interjects” into the relationship between two instances. Extra data is added to the relationship, but the original is untouched.

Next is the UPDATE manipulation:

The UPDATE manipulation “spoofs” or “imitates” the relationship between two instances. The original data is changed in value.

Finally we have the DELETE manipulation:

The DELETE manipulation “crashes” or “denies service” between two instances. The original data is completely corrupted or the relationship broken.

And there you have relationship manipulation in a nutshell.

## Systema: Manipulating Entities

The Six Hats Six Coats Framework’s first row deals with entities.

Let’s remind ourselves more visually:

In an earlier post I laid out the rows and columns for an entity security table. I’ve now abstractly filled in the cells and will share it with you:

Forgive me for coining new terms to make a consistent vocabulary.

How can these security breaches be described? First, the SELECT manipulation recognizes the instance it is dealing with. Second, the INSERT manipulation adds instances. Third, the UPDATE manipulation corrupts the original instance. Fourth, the DELETE manipulation destroys the instance. Realize that an instance can be a physical goal, a physical person, a physical function, a physical datum, a physical event or a physical node.

## 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: