What Rules Your Thinking?



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.

Internet: It’s Complicated


There is a problem with the internet.  It has forgotten its roots.  It has forgotten HTML.  It has forgotten LaTeX. It has forgotten WordPerfect.  It has forgotten television.  It has forgotten radio.  It has forgotten film.  It has forgotten phonographs.  It has forgotten photographs.  It has forgotten the Gutenberg Press.  It has forgotten the Alphabet.  It has forgotten Arabic Numerals.  It has forgotten Hieroglyphics.  It has forgotten music.  It has forgotten speech.

The internet is fascinated with digital waveforms.  They don’t realize that digital waveforms are phenomenally primitive.  As a consequence the internet is phenomenally complicated.  We have a whole generation trying to use metaphors of analog media equipment represented on digital media equipment.  It is complete crap and it does not occur to anyone.  Word processors are crap.  Spreadsheets are crap.  Presentations are crap.  Vector Graphics are crap.  Audios are crap.  Videos are crap.  Their formats and editors are crap.  Complex useless crap that many people are making a good living making more complicated to guarantee their meal tickets and they don’t even know it.  They use words like “organic”, “innovative”, “2.0”, “web”, “village”, “technology”, “entertainment”, “design”, “thinking”, “visual”, “global”, “climate”, “change”, “open”, “source”, “search”, “apple”, “i”, “my”, “face”, “google”, “twit”, “social”, “network”, “pirate”.  They hire lots of “numerati”, “literati”, “vidirati”, “audirati”, “timerati”, “grapherati”.  The words are meaningless and the people don’t know their assholes from first base.  They measure their credibility by their credit rating.

You ask them a “Simple” question and you get the “Complex” answer.  They don’t hear the question and don’t speak the answer.

They are shotgun happy pretending to be rifle sad.

Simplicity eats when it is hungry, sleeps when it is tired, doesn’t work or play.  Simplicity never leaves and never arrives.  Simplicity neither asks nor tells the time.  Simplicity is the crooked path that is the shortest distance.  Simplicity is periodic and chaotic.  Simplicity folows but has no leaders; leads but has no followers.

Posted in 1. Art, 2. Science, 3. Design, 4. Engineering, 5. Service, 6. Product, 7. Quality. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Universe: The Fabrics of Perception


I am working with the Latin language and it is helping me to classify my thoughts more effectively by understanding historical correlations in meaning. For example matter was considered a fabric. The term for light, “lume”, comes from the term loom which alludes to textile manufacture. In fact all of the textile terms merge with geometry where they were practically applied.

WEAVE: a fabric
POINT: a intersection
LINE: a line
ANG: a cut
HEIR: an area
VOL: layers
QUAL: a bundle

These terms have influenced our thinking for literally thousands of years. We still talk of the “fabric” of space, the fabric of time and “material” or whatever. We are unintentionally applying a metaphor. Yet it is a metaphor that has served us well.

At this point I present a scale that I have arrived at for human sensory perception.


– 8 , – 2 , – 1 , 0 , + 1 , + 2 , + 8


8 is infinity

2 is two

1 is one

0 is zero

+ is positive

– is negative

– 8 : WEAVE below perception: Datrice
– 2 : POINT: below acception: Sortrice
– 1 : LINE: below exception: Matrice
0 : ANGE: exception: Natrice
+ 1 : HEIR above exception: Patrice
+ 2 : VOL: above acception: Fratrice
+ 8 : QUAL: above perception: Satrice

1. WHO: Eyes: Occipital Lobe: Speciatation of Matter.

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root ASTR for the night sky:

– 8 : WEAVISTER: below perception
– 2 : POINTISTER: below acception
– 1 : LINISTER: below exception
0 : ANGISTER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRISTER above exception
+ 2 : VOLISTER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALESTER: above perception

PhotonicPhotons, PhotonicElectrons, PhotoincIons, PhotonicGases, PhotonicLiquids, PhotonicSolids, PhotonicMolecules

2. WHAT: Ears: Temporal Lobe: Association of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root FUL for Electricity or “Lightning” which is interesting because it means we hear events.

– 8 : WEAVIFUL: below perception
– 2 : POINTIFUL: below acception
– 1 : LINIFUL: below exception
0 : ANGIFUL: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIFUL: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIFUL: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIFUL: above perception

ElectronicPhotons, ElectronicElectons, ElectronicIons, ElectronicGases, ElectronicLiquids, ElectronicSolids, ElectronicMolecules

3. WHEN: Nose: Brainstem: Attibution of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root FIED for Ions or burn which is interesting because it means we smell ions or things that are reactive.

– 8 : WEAVEFIED: below perception
– 2 : POINTFIED: below acception
– 1 : LINEFIED: below exception
0 : ANGFIED: exception
+ 1 : HEIRFIED: above exception
+ 2 : VOLFIED: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIFIED: above perception

IonicPhotons, IonicElectrons, IonicIons, IonicGases, IonicLiquids, IonicSolids, IonicMolecules

4. WHERE: Throat: Parietal Lobe: Domination of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root AER for Gases

– 8 : WEAVIER: below perception
– 2 : POINTIER: below acception
– 1 : LINIER: below exception
0 : ANGIER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIER: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIER: above perception

GasicPhotons, GasicElectrons, GasicIons, GasicGases, GasicLiquids, GasicSolids, GasicMolecules

5. WHY: Mouth: Frontal Lobe: Ingestion of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root AEST for Liquids or “Sea” which is interesting because it means that the Sea is the surface of the water.

– 8 : WEAVIEST: below perception
– 2 : POINTIEST: below acception
– 1 : LINIEST: below exception
0 : ANGIEST: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIEST: above exception
+ 2 : VOLIEST: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIEST: above perception

LiquidicPhotons, LiquidicElectons, LiquidicIons, LiquidicGases, LiquidicLiquids, LiquiidicSolids, LiquidicMolecules

6. HOW: Body: Cerebellum: Deduction of Matter

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root TER for Liquids or “Earth” because it means that the creators of the word Earth meant “water”.

– 8 : WEAVITER: below perception
– 2 : POINITER: below acception
– 1 : LINITER: below exception
0 : ANGITER: exception
+ 1 : HEIRITER: above exception
+ 2 : VOLITER: above acception
+ 8 : QUALITER: above perception

SolidicPhotons,  SolidicElectons, SolidicIons, SolidicGases, SolidicLiquids, SolidicSolidsSolidic, Molecules

HOW MUCH: Gut: brain region unknown

+ 8 , + 2 , + 1 , 0 , – 1 , – 2 , – 8

Standard prefixes with root DUCT for Counting which is interesting because this involves the digestive process.  Molecule literally means “soft stone”.  Another word for dung.

– 8 : WEAVIDUCT: below perception
– 2 : POINTIDUCT: below acception
– 1 : LINIDUCT: below exception
0 : ANGIDUCT: exception
+ 1 : HEIRIDUCT above exception
+ 2 : VOLIDUCT: above acception
+ 8 : QUALIDUCT: above perception

MoleculicPhotons, MoleculicElectrons, MoleculicIons, MoleculicGases, MoleculicLiquids, MoleculicSolids, MoleculicMolecules.

Note: The seven International System Units are:

– 8 : WEAVE: below perception: Candela
– 2 : POINT: below acception: Ampere
– 1 : LINE: below exception: Kelvin
0 : ANG: exception: Metre
+ 1 : HEIRabove exception: Second
+ 2 : VOL: above acception: Kilogram
+ 8 : QUAL: above perception: Mole

I posted all of the above, because I believe that classification is underrated. If we spent more time thinking about the aesthetics of our classification language, which is presently total crap, we might make more discoveries.

How much do we conceal from ourselves because we deceive ourselves into thinkng a dogmatic classification system won’t bear fruit.

Have you ever seen this guy?


He beat his brains out letting the data talk to him and came up with this:

Periodic Table

When Dmitri Mendeleev created this table to describe periodic behaviour of the elements, many of the elements had not been discovered. However, the table projected what the properties of those elements would be making the search much easier.  Dmitri also was very good at making Vodka.

As I have discussed there are Satrice, Fratrice, Patrice, Natrice, Matrice, Sortrice and Datrice networks.  Each of them classify in different ways.  Understanding these networks and their classification are the road to new discoveries.  Networks are classification systems.

I just saw this in the New York Times:


It is called a “Knowledge Map”.  It is a plot of the link clicking behaviour of a scientific community.  Not what they say is important, but where they are going that they think is important.  From this information it may be possible to reorganize knowledge to make it more accessible to everyone.

And that is what we are all here for getting and giving access.

Posted in 2. Science, 7. Quality. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

DemocraNet: Scale-free CPUs, HFGW Networks, Associational DBMSs, Iconic Languages, AlwaysOns and Laypeople


I came across this article http://tinyurl.com/58envr in Infosthetics.com regarding a medical iconic language. This lead me to think about iconic languages in general.

What would happen if we developed non-text languages where icons were not just “terms” but were used as “definitions” as well?

Consider having:

Iconic vocabularies.
Iconic grammars.
Iconic syntax.
Iconic linguistics.
Iconic dictionaries.
Iconic thesaurii.
Iconic wikis.
Iconic semiotics.
Iconic animation.
Iconic context.
Iconic databases.
Iconic functions.
Iconic organization.
Iconic networks.
Iconic events.
Iconic fonts.
Iconic classics.
Iconic metrics.
Iconic audio.
Iconic video.
Iconic mechanio (pressure)
Iconic olfio (smell)
Iconic gustio (taste)
Iconic thermio (heat)
Iconic nocio (pain)
Iconic equilibrio (balance and acceleration)
Iconic proprio (body position)

Such languages already exist. Chinese Hanyu for example. But what if a new global iconic language were developed?

In my reading I am discovering that even words are treated by our minds iconically as symbolic clusters. If the first and last letter of a word is correct the remaining letters in the word can be in any order. In fact, we do the same things with words themselves. We create word clusters and shuffle them around to create sentences. I think language does not have the formula Chomsky came up with using random sets of words arranged syntactically. Words are symbols and sentence fragments are symbols that we connect together. We do the same thing with lists which are basically paragraph fragments. All these fragments are are arranged according to the rules of a scale-free network not a hard wired linguistic structure. I think that would shake Steven Pinker up.

The thing that is necessary to point out is literacy and numeracy does not make us any more or less intelligent. It is a symbolic system like any other that trains us to think in certain ways to process language and quantities. Whatever we do we are simply learning another, perhaps more efficient way of processing symbols representative of reality. Plato thought that literacy was dumbing down his students because they did not memorize and meditate on what they learned, choosing to write it down and put it on the shelf instead. Are our children any different if they choose to let computers deal with the mechanical aspect of literacy and numeracy so they can concentrate on higher order operations? Do we agonize over our children being unable to weave cloth and tailor clothing?

If Marshall McLuhan is right, we are not past the point where we are pumping old media through the new internet media pipe. Text will always be with us, I think because it is just too darned useful. But we will utilize it differently as we become able to record, replay, produce, publish, communicate and collaborate using non-textual, non-numeric media and move beyond linear and tabular networks and into netular scale-free networks.

Something that occurred to me about phonetic language like English and syllabic language like Arabic versus iconic language like Hanyu Chinese is a phonetic or syllabic language enable you to encode or decode words according to their sound and store and retrieve them based on a simple index. Hanyu on the other hand provides no association between code and sound. You are dependent on the person you hear the word from to provide the association making coding and decoding author dependent. Iconic storage and retrieval indexes are not always obvious either although they do exist based on the subordinate symbols from which words are composed. The internet poses the remedy to this by enabling the automation of the association between sound and icon and definition.

It seems to me that iconic languages as a technology are undergoing a major evolutionary change that could not be achieved without the internet.

Computing is going through an interesting process:

Note: PL means programming language

Nodular Computer: Mainframe: Priesthoods operate
Nodular Network: ARPANET: Priesthoods connect
Nodular Data: Variable: Noun: Priesthoods Query
Nodular Language: Variable PL: Assembler: Priesthoods Manipulate
Nodular Communication: Variable Packet: TCP/IP Priesthoods Communicate
Nodular Schedule: Sequential Batch

Linear Computer: Minicomputer: Scribes operate
Linear Network: Ethernet: Scribes connect
Linear Data: String dbms: Verb: Scribes Query
Linear Language: String PL: 3GL: Scribes Manipulate
Linear Communication: String Packet: HTML: Scribes Communicate
Linear Schedule: Multi-Tasking

Tabular Computer: Microcomputer: Educated operate
Tabular Network: Internet: Educated communicate
Tabular Data: Relational dbms: Noun Set: Educated Query
Tabular Language: Relational PL: SQL: Educated Manipulate
Tabular Communication: Relation Packet: XML: Educated Communicate
Tabular Schedule: Multi-Threading

What is over the horizon and will accompany Iconic Languages I call “DemocraNet”

Netular Computer: Scale-free CPUs: Laypeople operate
Netular Network: High Frequency Gravity Wave Network: Laypeople communicate
Netular Data: Associational DBMS: Verb Set: Laypeople Query
Netular Language: Assocational PL: Iconic Language: Laypeople Manupulate
Netular Communication: Association Packet: XMPEGML: Laypeople Communicate
Netular Schedule: AlwaysOn

Scale-free CPUs will be solid state computers.  There will be no moving parts at all: Solid State Storage, no fans, no boards and a Network Processor.

High Frequency Gravity Wave Networks will make available bandwidth several factors larger.

Associational DBMSs will allow us to modify databases on the fly without concerns regarding referential integrity or normalization.

Iconic Language will Internationalize visual communication.

XMPEGML as new form of markup language for the standardization of iconic language exchange awaits development.

AlwaysOn would mean that you are always connected to democranet and always processing data.

Everything is in the mix to varying degrees, but each successive community is larger.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Literacy and Numeracy: Who Needs Them?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “A Vision of Students Today“, posted with vodpod

When Plato was teaching his students he was often frustrated by their note taking and reference to written records.  Plato was of the opinion that the new technology of literacy was creating a generation that was unable to think and meditate on what they were learning because of their dependency on the written word.

Today, technology is providing us with a broad array of new media with which we record, replay, produce, publish, communicate and collaborate without using literacy or numeracy.  Academics, publishers and governments are alarmed at declines in the reading of printed publications and student’s declining performance in the classroom.  They are claiming that “computeracy” is creating a generation that cannot read, write or perform mathematical operations because of their dependency on digital communication.

The truth is literacy and numeracy are simply primitive techniques for encoding information.  Composition and mathematics are just a bag of mental tricks for processing information.  And most of us do most of it poorly anyway.

Grieving over the loss of literacy and numeracy is like grieving over the inability to weave cloth or tailor one’s own clothes.  Computers have made literacy and numeracy very much like the mechanization of textile production.

What is happening in classrooms, to publisher’s sales and bureaucracy is not a decline in the intelligence of our next generation.  It is an increasing obsolescence of traditional literacy and numeracy.

Our children are not thinking at lower levels.  Instead, they are not wasting time with the mental effort required to mechanically process at the level of traditional literacy and numeracy and applying themselves to higher level thought.

The current method of submitting papers for peer review is completely obsolete.  HTML was an attempt to take the primitive technology of the printed page, reference and citation and emulate it with the small addition of hyperlinks.

The yet to be fully realized method of academic publication will be the publication of databases containing problem and hypothesis, subjects and researchers, schemas and forms, data and queries, measures and units, amounts and currencies, results and conclusions all available for peer review and public consumption–research databases and white databases.  And beyond that entire models in common formats which we are seeing in Computer Assisted Design Systems and Geographic Information Systems, for example.

This new generation using new media is modeling the universe in ways and at scales that were impossible with pen, paper and chalkboard.  They are even beyond printing press, radio, television, recorded audio, recorded video and most physical storage.  And the new generation can already interact globally in all of these new media.

Where are the people that are supposedly preparing them for life in this new world?  Complaining that their students are not interested in reading text books.  Even pumping normal children full of Ritalin to deny they as educators are not worthy of their students’ attention.

Cognitary Stratus


trivergent, divergent, univergent, convergent.

“History does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.” –Mark Twain

Cognitary, Inc.


to Found

foresought and fidel,

forethought and factual,

familiar and friendly,

fair and full

to Fiat

seer and leader,

feeler and finder,

giver and taker,

seller and buyer


to Future

principle and power,

understanding and knowing,

safety and health,

prosperity and wealth

to Flow

vessel and berth,

heaven and earth,

table and hearth,

market and dearth


to Function

designing and engineering,

plotting and navigating,

crafting and smithing,

profiting and possessing

to Form

goal and person,

event and location,

service and product,

price and metric


to Fashion

control and command,

climate and terrain,

training and discipline,

currency and commodity

to Foot

sanctity and dignity,

certainty and verity,

testity and pacity,

quality and quantity

The above outline is the evolving strategic framework of my company Cognitary, Inc.  I am working to build a community of generalists to tackle client problems across the disciplines.


Universe: History Rhymes


In a Forum interview by Michael Krasny of NPR with Futurist Paul Saffo brought to my attention in a blog by Tim Brown of IDEO, Paul quotes Mark Twain who said, “History does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.”

My work on the Czerepak Framework is an effort to look back as far as possible to find the rhymes of the history of systems and out of it has come the following:

Trivergent Thinking

Freedom and Fiat

Divergent Thinking

Future and Flow

Univergent Thinking

Function and Form

Convergent Thinking

Fruition and Fulfillment

I have adopted the above process for my company, Cognitary, Inc.,  and call it “Cognitary Stratus”.  It is both a methodology and, when extended to additional dimensions, a framework for designing a system.


My usage of the root “verto” with the prefixes “tri-“, “di-“, “uni-” and “con-” are intended to create new terms to deal with a four dimensional perspective (not three) of systems.  The eight sub-forms of thinking correspond to the eight interrogatives:

  1. Why: Freedom
  2. Who: Fiat
  3. When: Future
  4. Where: Flow
  5. How: Function
  6. What: Form
  7. How Much: Fruition
  8. How Many: Fulfillment

These rhymes and sub-rhymes are the stratus of all systems and all systems design.  Together they are the basis of Cognitary Stratus.


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.

Universe: The Czerepak Framework

I just visited the archive of Tim Brown’s Design Thinking Blog and came across the following post:

Definitions of design thinking

Tim Brown » 07 September 2008 » In design thinking »

In my HBR article I gave a ‘definition’ of design thinking. It was:

Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.

On reflection this is a narrow description that focuses on design thinking’s role within business. The next sentence that I wrote.“….design thinking converts need into demand” , which I borrowed from Peter Drucker, broadens things out a bit but still assumes an economic motivation.

I am grappling with two questions as I think about this.

1. Is there a general definition of design thinking?

2. Is it useful to have one?

I think Tim has something very good here and suggest that the following would be a further breakdown of his classification:

  • Viable: Business
    • How Much: Quality
    • How Many: Quanitity
  • Feasible: Technology
    • What: Material
    • How: Process
  • Desirable: Human
    • Why: Goal
    • Who: People

Obviously, if you have been following my blog, you can see the same pattern appearing and reappearing as we explore other’s concepts.  The six interrogatives continue to reassert themselves.  However, I think I finally nailed one more aspect on the head.  I hate to say it, but it came to me in a dream about working on a programming project:

  • Reliable:
    • Where: Location
    • When: Timing

Quantity and Quality are two aspects of design/system thinking that are continually overlooked by academics and specialists, but not business people.

Interestingly enough this perspective is not new.  Clayton M. Christensen in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma discusses a four part model that fits nicely with this:

  1. Availability
  2. Compatibility
  3. Reliability
  4. Cost

I consider, Clayton’s the most empirical ordering.  Consequently, I would like to mesh Tim’s, Clayton’s and my perspective into the following:

  1. Feasibility: Technology
    1. How
    2. What
  2. Compatibility: Personality
    1. Why
    2. Who
  3. Availability: Market
    1. Where
    2. When
  4. Viability:  Business
    1. How Much
    2. How Many

Now, looking at this I am reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Tipping Point, and it adds the following character to the model:

  1. Feasability: Mavin
    1. How: Processes
    2. What: Materials
  2. Compatibility: Connector
    1. Why: Goals
    2. Who: People
  3. Availability: Salesman
    1. Where: Locations
    2. When: Schedules
  4. Viability: Customer
    1. How Much: Costs
    2. How Many: Units

Universe: A Multi-Dimensional Medium

Let’s do a thought experiment.  I want to take design thinking and abstract it to a system.


Imagine that there are no solids, liquids, gases or plasmas or particles.  That the Universe is a fluid medium swirling between equilibrium and non-equilibrium in multiple dimensions.  What we perceive to be solid, liquid, gas or plasma are not states, but intersections of dimensions that describe interdimensional vortices.  Energy is the intensity of a vortice.  Mass is a vortice of a set of dimensions.  Light is a vortice of a set of dimensions.  All of the particles are vortices of sets of dimensions.  Each influence the other based upon which dimensions they are composed of.

R. Buckminster Fuller clearly states in his work that we should perceive the systems as finite four dimensional spheres.

There are only four fundamental states:  vortice verge, vortice converge, vortice emerge, vortice diverge.


Everything we perceive are combinations of these vortice states.  The states are +/- vortice yaw, +/- vortice pitch, +/- vortice roll.

If any vortice is spiraling toward you it is positive, if any vortice is spiraling away from you it is negative.  By definition, no vortice can be stationary with respect to you.

There are only eight fundamental vortices: How, What, Why, Who, When, Where, How Much, How Many.

This gives us the following eight vortice, four state table:


Take the time to look at the terms defining each of the white cells in the table.  Each row is the addition of a dimensional vortice.  For example: Each additional “when” vortice is another separate clock.  Each additional “where” vortice is another separate radius.  All of them are factors in a system or a design.

And even this representation is inaccurate.  If we consider fractal geometry and chaos theory, there are no points, no straight lines, no arcs, no planes, no circles, no polygons, no polyhedrons, no spheres, only vortices that are above, within or below our range of perception.  Space cannot be filled with any geometric shape.  Everything is composed of vortices–spirals.

We have to abandon the flat world, flat space models we currently cling to.  The world and the universe are not infinite planes.  The world is a finite island of non-equilibrium in a predominantly equilibrium universe.

And that is it, the Czerepak (Chair-eh-pak) Framework.

Copyright (c) 2008 Grant Czerepak.  All rights reserved.


Tim Brown: Creativity and Play

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Tim Brown: Creativity and Play“, posted with vodpod

Do you want to be creative?

  1. Forget the opinions of your peers
  2. Provide a trusting environment conducive to play
  3. Turn off your Internal Editors
  4. Go for quantity
  5. Explore and Experiment
  6. Build Prototypes–Think with your hands
  7. Role Play–Insight to experience
  8. Play is not anarchy–it has cooperative rules
  9. Alternate between Divergent and Convergent modes


Tim Brown, Design Thinking Blog

Tim Brown, “Strategy by Design”, Fast Company

Tim Brown, “How I Work”, Fortune

IDEO website

Tim Brown, “Innovation Through Design Thinking”, MIT World Video