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: A Fuller Explanation


I am slowly building a library of books that influenced my thinking under the Product Page of this blog. During my search I discovered that one of my favorites, A Fuller Explanation: The Synergtic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller by Amy C. Edmondson, online in HTML.

Amy had the privilege of working with R. Buckminster Fuller and her book documents her concise understanding of the geometry in Fuller’s book Synergetics which is also available online in HTML.

R. Buckminster Fuller has strongly influenced my thinking about problem solving and about how little we actually know about the world. I urge you to explore both books.

Insideness and Outsideness

 Buckminster Fuller in his book, Synergetics, discusses the concept of insideness and outsideness. He said there are four states you can have relative to a boundary:

1. Outside
2. Outside on the surface
3. Inside on the surface
4. Inside


This appears obvious, but it has interesting implications when we look at tetrads.

First, I want to look at Marshall McLuhan‘s Laws of Media tetrad. McLuhan described his tetrad as having two domains:

1. Figure
2. Ground

Retrieve and Enhance were Figure laws. Reverse and Obsolesce were Ground Laws. The question this left me with is which is Inside and which is Outside? I decided to look at other tetrads to see if they could provide an answer. This led me to look at the Zachman Framework focuses.


The Zachman Framework focuses all complement each other with their four perspectives. I decided to look at the Network focus for guidance:

1. ExtraNetwork
2. InterNetwork
3. IntraNetwork
4. Node

Node appeared to conform with Inside, IntraNetwork with Inside-Surface, InterNetwork with Outside-Surface and ExtraNetwork with Outside.


I believe that Obsolesce correlates to Node, Reverse to IntraNetwork, Enhance to InterNetwork and Retrieve to ExtraNetwork. Therefore, Insideness was Ground and Outsidedness was Figure. That being the case I let it guide all further correlations.


Here is Moffett’s Data Dimension:


Here are the DIKW perspectives:


As you can see the possibility of correlations between many tetrads is possible when different metaphors bring out the similarities.

Here’s Maslow’s Hierarchy recognizing that the physiological needs are not a social need:


As you can see with Fuller, McLuhan, Zachman, DIKW and Maslow there is an inside and an outside to their tetrads. Crossing the boundary between the two sides requires a transition in viewpoint that we do not always recognize. That boundary can be the difference between an open and closed society, between order and chaos, between fire and ice.

Tetrad Theories

Here is a table to describe some of the tetrads we have discussed so far in this blog.


The first column is our friend Structured Query Language (SQL). The second column is the four components of physiological and psychological health. The third column is the tetrad of McLuhan’s Laws of Media. The fourth column are the Zachman Framework’s four perspectives. The fifth column are the first four Structured Development Lifecycle (SDLC) phases.

The rows in the table correlate the similar facets of each of the tetrads. I will go into detail in a later post. How does energy, matter, location and event correlate? How do the Secrets of the Universe of Discourse correlate? How does data, information, knowledge and wisdom correlate? How does colon classification correlate?

Take a moment and let yourself stretch.

Quadrant Theory

Judah Thornewill predicts: “Major online internet useage research firms will record that over 3 billion people in 2025 managed their incoming and outgoing digital information using a graphical user interface based on Quadrant Theory – as described in Marshall McLuhan’s “Tetrad” model in Laws of Media, Ken Wilber’s Holon in Sex, Ecology Spirituality, and R Buckminster Fuller’s Tetrahedral structures in Synergetics.”


I think this is an interesting prediction by someone trying to develop a product based on an unexplained concept. However the project appears to have vanished along with the website. What I plan to glean from it is Ken Wilber’s work. I plan to give it a read.