My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:
My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:
I have been looking at the Platonic Solids and thinking about how they correlate to the five senses. I thought about the left and right hemispheres of the brain and realized that each of the Platonic Solids should be truncated to represent the right hemisphere. Now I had ten solids to work with. I worked backward from this and recognized I had to create a separate left right pairing of each of the senses to represent the brain correctly five on the left and five on the right. I have to create pairs of senses, trios of senses, quartets of senses and a quintet of senses. This is because these are ways we learn. We learn most when our senses are learning as a quintet. This is why complete immersion in the environment we are to learn about is so effective.
This is a major revision of all my previous work. However, I feel it provides a much more robust sensory model.
Isaac Newton’s legendary statement was the premise of my new design. I saw there were five Platonic Solids and as a reaction they would produce the five Truncated Platonic Solids. This would influence all the components of the Solids.
Radeons. They are radical emissions. These are based on the number of polytopes in the Platonic Solids. These are your right origins.
Ideons. They are Ideal emissions which are temporal radical emissions. These are based on the number of polytopes in Truncated Platonic Solids. This is your left percetual spatial origin.
Audeons. They are audal patterns. These are based on the shape of the faces of the Platonic Solids. This is your right temporal plane.
Mudeons. They are musical patterns which are temporal audal patterns. These are based on the shape of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces. These are your left temporal planes.
Nadeons. They are nasal intensities. These are based on the angles of the Platonic Solids faces. These are your right parietal arcs.
Gudions. They are gustal intensities which are temporal nasal intensities. These are based on the angles of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces. These are your left parietal arcs.
Mates are Tadeons. They tactal points. These are the number of intersectin edges for each Platonic Solid’s polytope.
ReMates are Bodeons. They are Basal points which are temporal tactal points. These are the number of intersecting edges for each Truncated Platonic Solid’s polytopes.
The pyramids contain the space of the radeons combined with the audeons. Obtuse triangular pyramid, Right square pyramid, Right triangular pyramid, Right pentagonal pyramid, Acute triangular pyramid.
Imadeons. They are imadical solids. These are a cound of the number of faces on the Regular Solids.
Videons they are visical solids which are temporal imagical solids. This is the the count of the number of truncation faces on the surface of the Truncated Platonic Solids.
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:
Freedom and Fiat
Future and Flow
Function and Form
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:
These rhymes and sub-rhymes are the stratus of all systems and all systems design. Together they are the basis of Cognitary Stratus.
I have been thinking about the terms “convergent” and “divergent” in Tim Brown of IDEO’s Design Thinking and realized that they were products of planar (2 dimensional) thinking. This has lead me to alter my definitions of what convergent and divergent are and to also redefine “vergent” and add “trivergent”. I also realized that the convergence point is at the center of the ellipsoid and each verge (radius) point is separate and distinct.
Converge, diverge, verge and triverge all come from the same Latin root “verto”, to turn out. All of the polyhedron vertexes are representations of the intersections of radii with the surface of not a sphere, but an ellipsoid. Therefore each vertex is a unique dimension or radius. However, there is one thing that is still not recognized.
Roll, Pitch and Yaw ellipses alone are an incorrect representation of orientation in space because they fail to include orientation relative to the observer. Roll, Pitch and Yaw are flat earth concepts. You cannot represent an ellipsoid with three radii. The minimum radial representation of an ellipsoid requires four points on the surface of the ellipsoid. The tetrahedroid is the minimal representation of the inscription of an ellipsoid.
The above three ellipse object and four ellipse object are both ellipsoids, the only difference between them and the three ellipse ellipsoid above them is the perspective–they have been rotated in space. Using the four dimensional representation gives us the table below:
While I was illustrating the above table it became apparent to me that it accurately reflected John Boyd’s OODA Loop. It also became apparent to me that the OODA Loop could be conceputally simplified to:
The OODA Loop or the Czerepak Framework cycle can be graphed as a simple two dimensional sine vertice:
Now, that’s all sure and fine and it provides a way of thinking with a minimum number of variables. However, if we think about John Boyd as a military combatant it is not the right set of variables. The model has to cater to the following needs:
Suddenly, it becomes obvious that in a system involving living organisms there is added complexity and layers of consciousness. The following table is my first attempt to illustrate this:
The yellow row and column headers are what is of importance. The naming of the white cells will have to come later. Obviously, there are considerable changes in the order of the columns and rows, but I believe John Boyd is closer to the truth about the process than anyone else. Therefore I am redefining everyone else’s concept to fit his. What is important about the table is that in the columns each icon represents a set of ellipses that one ellipse at a time intersects with the ellipses above it to converge on a subset that is the target.
Colonel Boyd’s model was simple. Deviations from it are based more upon misunderstanding than anything else. This is the fundamental System Development Lifecycle (SDLC):
“What are we deleting?” You may ask. We are deleting exceptions that existed in the previous system whatever that system may have been. We are never dealing with a non-existent system. We are SELECTing a set of exceptions the current system does not handle. We are INSERTing those exceptions into the current system. We are UPDATEing the system to handle those exceptions. We are DELETEing those exceptions from the system. I still have to work to reconsider the names for each of the cells, but I am converging on that. The differences between methodologies are really ones of scale and nothing else. It’s how many exceptions do you intend to address at a time.
This effort is requiring a lot of work and rework because I have never dealt with eight interrogatives before, however the fit is conceptually the best I have ever had.
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:
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:
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.