## The Brain: ZenUniverse 1.0

### Lao Tzu

Since reading the work of Clare W. Graves of Spiral Dynamics fame, reflecting on the work of all the people mentioned in my Blogroll as well as my recent foray into Zen I attempted to review and revise my work on the assortment of frameworks I had come up with. As I was making revisions it dawned on me that nature had done all the work already.

“Outside this office, Business as Usual;

Inside this office, Thunder and Lightning.”

Colonel John Boyd

I decided to take another angle of attack.  I realized I was dealing with entities, hierarchies, attributes and relationships and one thing Boyd overlooked, results, in two dimensions not one.  You may remember this graphic:

I realized I would have to take the Boyd Pyramid a bit more seriously.  And I have.  I compared Boyd’s work to Einstein’s, saw the correlations and what I think is a flaw.

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

Albert Einstein

## ZenEntity

The first thing I want to address is a misconception regarding solids.  It was one Plato made as well as R. Buckminster Fuller.  There are not five stable solids.  There are six.

The mistake Plato and R. Buckminster Fuller made was to demonstrate the stability of a triangle composed of three rods to their students while saying that the simplest solid in three dimensional space is the tetrahedron.  He didn’t realize the triangle in his hand was the simplest solid.  The triangle is a two sided three vertex solid that is the simplest enclosure of space.  Our eyes use two of them to locate an object and calculate distance.

Considering the above solid and the Platonic Solids we have six three dimensional closed network structures as illustrated below:

Take note of the stability of each of the solids.  What this means is that the triangulated solids are able to support themselves structurally, while the non-triangulated solids collapse.

What I realized regarding the work of Einstein and other physicists is they did not regard the various phases of matter as important.  However the states of matter are important.  Each state from the triangle up to the icosahedron as illustrated above are higher states of order.  Yet, each state of order is fundamental to the universe in which we live.  And all are simply phases of what I call the “ZenEntity”.

## ZenAssociations

I decided after looking at what I had found regarding the solids to reject contemporary empirical conventions and simply address one thing.  We have six fundamental ordered states.  After several billion years of evolution would not all organisms have what they require to function in response to all of the six states in their niche?

My next question was, “How do I represent the phenomena I had encountered as a network?”

In my profession there are data architects, database designers, data modelers, database administrators, data entrists, data analysts, database developers, database programmers database analysts, data warehouse architects, data warehouse analysts, data warehouse developers, Extract-Transform-Load architects, ETL analysts, ETL designers, ETL developers, ETL programmers, Business Intelligence architects, BI analysts, BI designers, BI developers and so on.  However, I was never satisfied with any of these position titles.  So, I coined one myself: data designer.  I was of the opinion no matter how much data was out there, it was finite.  Zero and Infinity were very useful, but they violated the laws of thermodynamics.  I saw seven distinct phases of order in the universe and only saw transitions from one state to another.  I could design according to those states.

This led me to explore how I could represent the six states.  I studied and applied a variety of project lifecycles such as System Development Lifecycle, Extreme Programming and Rapid Application Development, joint application development.  I had learned various enterprise frameworks such as Zachman and TOGAF, modeling techniques like UML, the various generations of programming languages, data structures, network topologies, organizational concepts, rule based systems, event based systems, data based systems, user centered design, goal directed design, location based services, pattern languages, service oriented architecture, hardware architectures and many more.  I studied English, Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, German and French to see how I could develop a consistent taxonomy as well.

Ultimately I concluded that a majority of the people out there working on these problems had abandoned the basics for pet concepts.  They had no idea how many entities there were.  They had no idea how those entities should be related.  So I took it upon myself to identify all the relations that were applicable and came up with the following:

The associations are as follows:

1. Pattribute: a triangle entity
2. Battribute: a one to many relationship describing the association between a triangle and an tetrahedron
3. Attribute: a one to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a hexahedron
4. Nattribute: a many to one relationship describing the association between a triangle and a octahedron
5. Lattribute: a recursive many to one relationship describing the association between two icosahedrons and one icosahedron
6. Mattribute: a recursive one to one relationship describing the association between two dodecahedrons

As you can see, the network is asymmetrical and allows for Node, Lattice, Tabular, Lattice, Linear; Lattice arrangements.  Note that since all of the entities are simply states of a single “ZenEntity” none of the states are independent from each other in the network.

## ZenPhases

Now, that we have established the solids and how they are interconnected we can look at what the actual phases of the ZenEntity are.  Each of these phases are recognized in physics, however I have not come across any discussion of the possibility that they are together a set of fundamental phases.

Usually, we see Space, Time, Energy and Mass described in Einsteinian classical physics.  We also have discussions of Ions, Gases, Liquids and Solids as states of matter.  But we don’t see them together.

1. Energy: a three dimensional coordinate system
2. Time: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and two four dimensional coordinate systems
3. Ion: a connection between one three dimensional coordinate system and one six dimensional coordinate system
4. Gas: a connection between two three dimensional coordinate systems and one eight dimensional coordinate system
5. Liquid: a connection between two twelve dimensional coordinate system and one twelve dimensional coordinate system
6. Solid: a connection between two twenty dimensional coordinate systems

Next, we will see how these states are all very important to our sensory systems.

## ZenStates

As well as the phases there is another way to look at the six solids.  This is in the Latinate language of the six states.  The states differ from  the phases in that they deal with the essence or source of each of the states.

The essence of each of the states is as follows:

1. Pattern: Father
2. Battern:  Hold
3. Attern: Give
4. Nattern: Birth
5. Lattern: Milk
6. Mattern: Mother

## ZenSensors

Now, I am going to introduce you to some friends of mine.  I call them “Zen Sensors”

As you can see each ZenEntity State has a coresponding human sensory organ:

1. Eye: detect events
2. Ear: detect pressures
3. Nose: detect plasmas
4. Throat: detect molecules
5. Jaw: detect organics
6. Body: detect inorganics

## ZenInterrogatives

Next, we have for your viewing pleasure the standard interrogatives and how they correlate:

I found this interesting, because I spent a great deal of time resisting the order of these interrogatives.  Finally, I just went along and found ultimately the order does make perfect sense.  It is an acquired taste.

1. Eye: Who: Identification
2. Ear: What: Objectification
3. Nose: Where: Location
4. Throat: When: Chronation
5. Jaw: Why: Rationation
6. Body: How: Function

If you read enough Anglo-Saxon it makes sense.

## ZenHemisphere

Having considered the Entities, Associations, States and Sensory Organs, let us now look at how this relates to a hemisphere of the brain:

The above illustration shows the left hemisphere of the brain and the major regions.  They are color coded to correspond to the fundamental states I have described.  You can also see the corresponding sensory organ as well as the corresponding network structure in the region:

1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
5. RED:  JAW: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.
6. ORANGE: BODY:  CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.

## ZenBrain

Everything is great so far, but there is the fact that there are two hemispheres to the brain and they interact through the Corpus Callosum which I claim is where the self resides.  One of the interesting things about my study of Latin is that I discovered most questions actually required a two part answer.  This answer would be composed of an Archetype and a Type.  After reading Jill Bolte Taylor’s book, My Stroke of Insight and listening to her account of her perceptions while the left hemisphere of her brain was being shut down by an exploded blood vessel, it became apparent to me that the left hemisphere of the brain contained the Types the Latin language required and the right hemisphere of the brain contained the Archetypes.  It was necessary to create a two axis model to accomodate a brain with two hemispheres:

Each of the light colored cells in this table represent a connection between one coordinate system association (row) and another coordinate system association (column).  This accounts for the broad variety of properties we encounter making the states we experience.

There are actually not one or two, but four directions you can take on the above table.    Top to Bottom is right hemisphere deduction.  Bottom to Top is right hemisphere induction. Left to Right is left hemisphere deduction.  Right to Left is left hemisphere induction.

This is a physiological model of human perception that I have arrived at.  Our current definitions of dimensionality are incorrect.  Each state has its own dimensionality, its own associations, its own sense organs, its own region of the brain and the brain two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum.  If the work of Dr. David Bryson on Physical, Decisional and Perceptual Learning is right, then deduction happens during waking and induction happens during sleeping.

This is not a complete model by any means as it does not deal with scale-free networks.  Or does it?

But to this point, that is the Zen Universe.

## Tetrads: McLuhan’s Laws and SQL

I have been going over all the past material in this blog as I am now working on my book. One of the things I am clearing up is my understanding of McLuhan’s Laws of Media known as Tetrads. All that McLuhan discovered and I don’t mean to diminish his work is discover the four manipulations that are possible with any form of media including data.

McLuhan’s four Laws of Media were:

1. Retrieve
2. Enhance
3. Reverse
4. Obsolesce

The four correspoding manipulations are:

1. Select
2. Insert
3. Update
4. Delete

Please dismiss any past correlations I made between the Manipulations and Laws of Media with the Six Interrogatives.

I was recently reading this blog post about REST winning the Web Services war. And I noticed that one of the cornerstones of the simplicity of REST is a tetrad:

1. GET
2. PUT
3. DELETE
4. POST

This is one of information technology’s oldest tetrads. Interesting how when we get back to basics we win the game.

Working with the hexads and the Six Hats, Six Coats model has raised some interesting conceptual questions. This post is an incomplete attempt to address them.

We have many personas within each of us. This is evidenced by our ExtraPersonal behaviour. Depending on the environment we interact within we present different behavior. ExtraPersonal thought manages our personas. This meets our safety need.
To satisfy our physiological needs our InterPersonal behavior is exhibited. Our personas communicate with each other. This is true internal dialog.

To engage with other systems we depend on IntraPersonal behavior. These are the sensory-motor functions as guided by a single persona.

I’m trying to think about how this hexad affects the Moffett Universe of Discourse.

Here’s the Universe before:

Here’s the Universe after:

I’m working on developing a data model to represent this new hexad structure as well:

I have been working on creating a new vocabulary to describe the associations in the hexads. I apologize for any terms I have had to invent, but a new concept requires new terms. The first three terms (ie. ExtraNetwork, InterNetwork, IntraNetwork) are external to the entity. The second three terms (ie. ExtraSpatia, InterSpatia, IntraSpatia) are internal to the entity.

MOTIVE
ExtraStrategy
InterStrategy
IntraStrategy
ExtraMotiva
InterMotiva
IntraMotiva

LOCALE
ExtraNetwork
InterNetwork
IntraNetwork
ExtraSpatia
InterSpatia
IntraSpatia

OBJECT
ExtraAssembly
InterAssembly
IntraAssembly
ExtraForma
InterForma
IntraForma

METHOD
ExtraProcess
InterProcess
IntraProcess
ExtraFunctiona
InterFunctiona
IntraFunctiona

PERSON
ExtraGroup
InterGroup
IntraGroup
ExtraPersona
InterPersona
IntraPersona

MOMENT
ExtraSequence
InterSequence
IntraSequence
ExtraTempora
InterTempora
IntraTempora

The gist of all these terms is that there are systems and associations without us and within us. For every level of granularity we establish there are levels of granularity above and below what is essentially an arbitrary “zero point”.

My thoughts on the hexad structure are gradually establishing themselves. There are still some incongruities that I am attempting to work out. One of them is individual and group phenomenology.  Another is how to represent the relationships above and below the person-group horizon in the person focus as well as with the other focuses.

## Intelligence, Moffett and Zachman

Way back when I posted the following table:

This table represents James Moffett’s “Universe of Discourse” from his book, Teaching the Universe of Discourse. I recently read a blog post by John Wesley discussing memory as cognition and metacognition and it made Moffett’s universe all the more relevant. Jeff Hawkins of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute was of the opinion that a theory of mind would focus on prediction. When I stopped and put these two together, I realized that a complete theory of mind would actually encompass Moffett’s universe. John Wesley’s blog dealt with “reporting” and Jeff Hawkins theory dealt with “theorizing”.

If we use Moffett’s universe as a map for the theory of intelligence we can see that intelligence is separated into a data dimension and a people dimension. According to the universe there are sixteen different facets of intelligence. Let’s look at the Moffett universe more abstractly:

But in the light of the Zachman Framework that is not all there is to intelligence or to the universe of discourse for that matter. An intelligent system according to the Zachman framework does not have two, but six dimensions.

If we look at the six dimensions afforded by the Zachman framework we see there is not only a “recording” component or a “prediction” component on a one dimensional axis that deals with only data. We also see that there is not only a data dimension and people dimension. We in fact discover that there is “spatial” intelligence (network), “causal” intelligence (motive), “process” intelligence (function) and “chronological” intelligence (time).

It is fascinating how a simple six dimensional model can create such a complex interplay.

I am of the opinion that each of these facets has a certain amount of hard wiring in the brain.

R. Buckminster Fuller’s books reveal a characteristic of his thinking. He would always return to his simplest system, the tetrahedron, and travel on ever new tangents. I decided to look at Zachman again with a different orientation and apply tetrads.

It is important to note that each of the columns is a design perpective. The one to one column is not the real entity but a physical design perspective of the entity.

## What Do the Boxes and Lines Mean?

For the past several posts I have been listing tetrads in juxtaposition to a set of graphics:

These four graphics are representative of the four fundamental relationships in the relational model using a notational style called IDEF1X.  These four relationships are used to design relational databases.  I am of the opinion that these relationships form what I call a “tetrad”, a term I borrow from Marshall McLuhan, and that it shares characteristics with other tetrads.

I invite you to look at the other posts under the tetrad category in my blog.