Multiple paths is good. Not having any concentric hierarchy, even as an option, is what's keeping the USAers dull and docile, hopeless about the future. That seems like a tremendous leap, assumes a lot, could be dismissed as a kooky hypothesis. On the other hand, having more Fuller geometry on TV, even in advertising, would suggest a Renaissance culture might be emerging.
In the old days, a grid of squares or some XYZ-looking grid might signify "high tech" in some advertisement. I think today, in the age of biological sciences, the old aesthetics don't work as well, have been displaced by something more organic and 60-degree based. Yes, I sound like a "Mad Man" (a Madison Avenue guy, an advertiser). To advertise knowing your Fuller, is to advertise having done some homework and having a positive futurism to share about. Companies that do that have the opportunity to brand as pro humanity and philanthropic, thereby earning good will.
So why aren't more companies doing this? My answer is in terms of the dictatorship of the conditioned reflexes. We don't seem to have the right motor responses here, are clinging to past glories. The right motor response would be to adapt, but the over-specialization problem is also an adaptation problem. We're not finding many early adapters coming forward, which is a real concern at the species level. "No manifest ability to learn from hard won experience" might be the negative teacher comment here.
I hope you'll keep pushing and reach a point in your rhetoric where it's clear that polyhedra matter a great deal. They simply represent what's out there, spatially speaking. It's a universe of containers, things with insides and outsides.
Fuller embeds these concrete objects in a time dimension, complete with energy, is accepting of the actual artifacts as specimens to be analyzed, in terms of their angles and frequencies (shapes and sizes).
flextegrity pod with dachshund chihuahua