Universe: Interrogative Spaces


In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts.  What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework.  My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.

The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace.  Each ellipse I call a “vortice”.  The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices.  The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives,  but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces?   A good example is speed or velocity.  Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:

v = r / t

Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.

If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:

a = r / t’ * t”

Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock.  You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces.  .

Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets.  The first row are the complete Space vortice sets.  The second row are the first Space vortice subsets.  The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.

I do not believe that anything is constant.  Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology.  Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique.  We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.


Systema: Art and Method

I have been spending considerable time in the University of Notre Dame Latin English Dictionary this past week looking to refine my terminology for Systema. One of my discoveries is that “modus” is not a term for “method”, but “standard” such as “modus operandi” — “standard operation”. The actual word for method or skill is “ars” or “art”. Thus “Art of War”–Artis Armus–is synonymous to “Method of War” or “Skill of War”. Consequently, I will be referring to the How interrogative with the response as “Artus” not “Modus”. The six interrogatives and responses are as follows:

  1. Why – Causus – Cause
  2. Who – Ductus – Command
  3. How – Artus – Method
  4. What – Datus – Given
  5. When – Eventus – Result
  6. Where – Locus – Location

Interestingly enough, this fits very well into the Empirical Process. All that is left out is the conclusion. The conclusion determines “how much” the system corroborates (benefits) the cause.

7. How Much – Conclusus – Conclusion