Arrowhead Math

My arrowhead is what the ancient Greeks called a tetrahedron.  It might be regular, and when doing our home base, our tent, or teepee, it is.  

That’s the “tent tripod on the Earth” model, the bump or convex dent. Concave dents hold water and other fluids.  Then we have those flying caltrop looking devices, but more commonly the XYZ 6-spoke flyer.  

These flyers might have drone aspects, depending on the world we’re in.  Yes, computer game talk.  That’s a new anchoring shoptalk at FSI, with Gary our project lead.

Do we need at least flyers for birds eye views?  A rule when world building could be that we have no disembodied viewpoints.  We do have tiny insect-like flyers.  

As a “first person” you’re enabled to “look from” these myriad viewpoints, but all are embodied and have their physical limitations.

The term “quadray” may evoke “quadcopter” and sure, we’re fine with a drone-friendly shoptalk.  The quadcopter is a familiar drone design. 

The caltrop inside the regular tetrahedron, however, has any two of its rays at 109.5 degrees to each other (that’s rounded).  Here we get to jump into trig.

However, before jumping into trig, our games exercise the notion of “vector sum” by adding these pre-existing rays in obvious ways.  The parallelogram model holds.  Connect the tips and reflect the resulting triangle.

We have six pairs, for example, that cancel each other except for contributing to the length of a bisector.  The six spokes of XYZ have now emerged.  The caltrop begets the jack.

Then we have sets of three defining the edges of a quadrant.  They cancel (balance) by adding to the length of a ray out through the face center.  The four sets of three add to give the vertexes of the inverse tetrahedron.

We might add any pair (parallelogram model), then a third quadray (parallelogram again).

The tetrahedron and its inverse define the merkaba star (or stella octangula), likewise the corners of our duo-tet volume 3 cube.  That’s right, volume 3, and our tetrahedrons are volume 1.

Jumping into trig, we want students to remember the A modules, 12 right and 12 left.  The quadrays define  their spines.  The fact that the origin floats above the floor, 1/3 of the way to the opposite apex, gives us a tent pole to play with.

In jumping to trig, we focus on the arccos (adjacent FE / hypotenuse CE) = acos(1/3) = angle CEF.  That gives 70.5287794, which, subtracted from 180, is our intra-quadray angle:  109.4712206.

The fact that Buckminster Fuller and friends would add substantively new language games around polyhedrons starting in the 1970s with the publication of Synergetics, when rectilinear orthodoxies were already well established, would give arrowhead math a subversive and/or discordant aura.

Discordant themes tend to set up a dialectic and drive discussion and debate in the direction of a new synthesis.  We see that happening in connection with Pentagon Math.

A Critique of Protestantism

Here's my theory, about Christianity more specifically, because of my own experience with that religion (I'll claim ignorance with respect to many others -- life is finite):  one gets groomed to think "rendering a moral judgement" is ultimately what's called for.  

At the end of the day, we're waiting for some verdict.  

Elon Musk is good.  Elon Musk is bad.  My attitude is more:  who the fuck cares about your moral judgements in this matter; there's lots more that's more interesting to talk about.  Including with respect to Elon.

Kinda like that.

Now I may have the impression the Catholics are less judgemental, hence their name ("catholic" as in open minded, worldly, cosmopolitan), whereas Protestants are all about raining "fire and brimstone" (whatever that is) upon their moral inferiors.  

All that resentment about a "holier than thou" attitude traces to English pricks right?  I'm kidding.  You'll  find pricks in every culture.  Tea cuppy Victorians (soccer moms) and like that.  

As if your moral pronouncements were what the big drum roll was all about.  We were all in suspense about if you thought it was good or bad.  That's such an arrogant attitude.  

It's not that we don't care what you think, it's that you just assume it's your moral attitude, your ethnic bias, that we're interested in.  Why not ask us what we think matters?  At least once in awhile?

Why do we have to care if such and such offends you.  Were you asked?  Entitlement.

Making Judgement Day the most important day in eternity, seems to be a hallmark of Protestantism especially.  Why not Easter?

Chattering About Quadrays

 

What does ChatGTP know about Quadrays in 2023? 

A is for Anthropology. 

Erratum: "tail-to-tail" at 180 degrees (not "tip to tail") -- talking about vectors. 

Talking Points on Medium.

 

Version Control

 
The global conversation surrounding the slicing of Europe's jugular, energy-wise, wended its way through the United Nations today.

I somewhat agree it's OK to delay an investigation until we get clear about a key point:  the USA as a nation is not obligated to take the blame for this terrorist act, no matter the citizenship or job titles of the people behind it.

Neither was the USA obligated to run cover for the secret operation to provide the Contras in Central America with funding from Iran. That was a rogue operation run by secretive operatives who just assumed the USA would be appreciative of their covert efforts.  That's no more than an assumption, then or now.

Who gets to decide when Uncle Sam is culpable?  Are we talking about in a democracy or what?  

What if you're aware of a narrative wherein the USA might be considered bankrupt already, with a Medal of Freedom winner backing up that account.  Not newly bankrupt, but since the 1980s, and not just financially, but morally.  

In what sense might we blame Uncle Sam, if Uncle Sam is in fact dead and gone?

But even without such a radical-sounding story, it's still permissible to ask the question:  where do we draw the line?

A lot of us think the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline was so outside the rules, that no state actor could possibly have been involved by definition.  Such acts are just too beyond the pale.  Nation states are not infinitely malleable.

The same logic might be applied to 911:  whoever was in on it, the USG was not, by definition, because said act was too unconstitutional to be laid at the door of the USA.  911 was a job by outsiders (perhaps posing as insiders?).

It's more honest to say "the USA is dead and gone" (we knew that) than to say it was responsible for some desperate act of sabotage (feeling cornered are we?) such that we must now engage in some form of coverup.  

Why?  Why is your USA that weak?  Mine isn't.

In my story line the USA is (a) innocent of wrongdoing and (b) actively pursuing the perpetrators, in part by making their cover stories ever less believable, ever more paper thin, to the point of transparent.

As of today, I could easily go with the Seymour Hersh version of what happened, minus the assumption that "we the people" (our government) have to consider ourselves an accomplice.  Was Hersh himself in on the plan?  No?  So why say "we"?

On the contrary, my USA is apparently working closely with Seymour Hersh, and this wouldn't be the first time.

Think how little kids play with dolls.  

Janet says our dolly just blew up Nord Stream.  

As long as it's our dolly too (and we say it is), we maybe won't feel compelled to go along with Janet's proposal.  Her story is not necessarily more credible than ours.

"Our dolly did no such thing" is our side of it.  

It all comes down to which side gets to write the history books.  Certainly my side has its version.

An Uphill Battle Lost

I'm back to teaching about the various Python ecosystem tools (3rd party) in widespread use by various professionals studying data.  The course is called Data Analysis with Python.  My managers are in Türkiye.

My final uphill battle on M4W was about recruiting the math PhDs frequenting this space into taking some interest in Quadray Coordinates, and by extension more of the Bucky stuff.  No dice.  

To his credit, Andrius put some hours into it, but didn't appreciate dealing with its fait accompli aspects i.e. he wanted to recreate the apparatus from scratch (a useful exercise) but in so doing made different aesthetic choices along the way.  

My preexisting literature proved a source of irritation.  He gave up in frustration.

Quadrays comprise what we call a "language game" in a philosophical investigation modeled after one of Wittgenstein's, into the foundations of mathematics.  What if, instead of the XYZ apparatus of six spokes from an origin, plus and minus i, j, k, we had four spokes to the corners of a regular tetrahedron.  Might we not span space the same way, with vector addition?  Yet all the points are 4-tuples, not 3-tuples in this picture, with no need for negative numbers in the canonical representation.

How does such an apparatus influence adjacent concepts, already caught up in XYZ thinking, such as "linear independence", "dimension" and "basis vector"?  Do we gain any insights into how these "math words" achieve their meanings?  

More specifically, I use the quadrays apparatus to motivate reader appreciation for Bucky Fuller's "4D" meme.

My incursion into the M4W space (M4W = math for wisdom), with all that Bucky Fuller related baggage, seemed like crowding to Andrius, who already has his own philosophy he wants to share.  He's not in the mood to tackle an alien (aka Martian) alternative.  So I'm taking the hint and fading back, but not disconnecting.

In the meantime, the geopolitical sphere remains tense.  I'm not a fan of Lindsey Graham's either, and got some quantum of solace hearing Scott Ritter vent is rage on YouTube, regarding the senator's absurd warmongering.

Andrius did offer at one point that he had some psychoanalytic technique up his sleeve, though he didn't call it that, whereby he can shrink any psyche in terms of some 24 components, given sufficient profile information.  Is this like Myers-Briggs?  He mentioned he could perform such an analysis on Bucky Fuller, having earlier suggested Vladimir Putin.  I suggested he take up the latter first, so we might see what such an analysis might entail.

One of the side projects of M4W involves Andrius looking to apply his techniques and insights into reducing violence levels in Eastern Europe (Western Asia).  People call it a proxy war and some liken it to the District's support for Saddam Hussein's army versus the Iranian one.  This was before the District turned on Iraq itself, based on some misunderstandings.

This focus on ending the retro dark ages tank wars in the Donbas is partly what got me onboard in the first place.  

But then the W for Wisdom turned out to be more a surrogate for something else called "absolute truth" which turned out to be a complex set of mathy language games that take quite awhile to grok (like quadrays).  Bait and switch?  No, I think it's more a matter of needing to be clear with any new people coming in.

Presidential Circus (aka District Soap)

I thought Marianne gave a fine performance in her "grilling" by Krystal and Kyle (they were open and friendly).  She reported having a thicker skin, which makes sense (this isn't her first rodeo), and radiated confidence regarding her ability to beat Biden.  

I know, you're thinking "who couldn't?" but the barriers to entry are pretty secure.  Few of us get a pathway to "post Camelot" or whatever we're calling it (West Wing or like that).

However, as I pointed out to another supporter, Oregonians registered as Independent are not invited to participate in DNC primaries.  Assuming she's in a contest with other Dems, I'm another guy in the bleachers, an NPC.  

Voting is another spectator sport in this country, by design in many cases (computers get involved, in purging the registered-to-vote rolls especially, where too many people seem to have the same names).

I was never allowed to vote for Bernie.  He never got that far in the contest.  The parties (those despicable parties) have it all sewn up.  So good luck anyone with talent (I think Marianne has some).

My thanks to Michael Goldberg (no, not the same MG for which the Goldbergs are named, another math teacher though), for pointing out the typo (Neolitic) in the M4W Digital Math poster (see previous blog post).  I'd included it in a Medium story that he'd read.

That got me to thinking of a "mythic past" i.e. we could occasionally fade out in our latest thinking about history, and switch to something Xnu (that's a pun on Gnu) i.e. something more obviously science fictional.  I'm leaving the door open.

We could call this made up past our Neolitic Era (an invented word).  In game land, we call these "worlds" as we do in fiction (J.R.R. Tolkien, Dickens) and in movie-making (Coen Brothers, Herzog), wherein even minor characters may be "world building".

Martian Math could become "Architectronics" in some versions (I've always invited substitutions); a word I somewhat derived from the Ekistics crowd, back in the day.  I probably wrote it "Ekistyx" just to add a tad of Dark City spin (haven't seen it yet) -- you know how teenagers are sometimes: attracted by a Gothic aesthetic (although the river Styx is actually Greek).

You may wonder why I mix "Made for TV" language ("District Soap" in the title) with presidential politics (as produced by DC).  DC for District of Columbia, not DC Comix, rival of Marvel.  

Because presidential politics is a lot about television, obviously, but for other reasons too.

Yes, I am permitted by law to surrender my Independent status and re-register with the DNC if I want to play in their sandbox.  I get it.  But I don't want to make such a Faustian bargain with any of these war parties that run the District.  That's kind of the point.

A M4W Rendering of Digital Math

School of Tomorrow: Personal Workstations

Biographical Note

From a text message to a family friend (slightly edited, links added)

Of interest about Carol (1929 - 2023). She was a huge St. Francis fan. And she knew things about his biography that most people don’t. 

For example, part of his inner circle was this woman named Jacopa. She was from a wealthy family based in Rome. The Frangipanis. They had a castle inside the Roman Colosseum! 

Anyway, she wrote a whole novel about Jacopa and Saint Francis called The Lions and the Lamb. It never got published but not because her agents thought it was bad. It was just too long and they were worried it would not be suitable for mass publication given she was a first timer. They don’t like to go with multipart books with a new author. Or something like that. It was a long time ago.

Later, she managed to parlay her research for the novel into a masters degree from a Jesuit college in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University. That was pretty exotic and is shown in the picture.

Current Events

:: senators: TikTok is not your toy ::

Yes I've been paying attention to the Twitter Files.  I'm especially interested in the pressures exerted on the company (i.e. Twitter) to prove the narrative that lurky jerky bots were a problem we needed defending against.  I hadn't been aware of the Hamilton 68 subterfuge, nowadays dragging a lot of people down given its exposure as fraudulent.

Of course I'm tracking the Sy Hersh story on NS2, eager to see if I can keep working in a crazed BP PM. UK I mean.  BP, whatever.  I don't saddle Uncle Sam (US) with the blame, mainly because he's long dead. A resurrection story might be in the cards.  

As a global OS (operating system), USA values have worked their way into the woodwork, with the grain of popular public opinion.  That's not nothing.  Democracy still smells like roses, even if still over some distant horizon at this point. 

How is the human brain a democracy?  Some would say it's not, but I'm not so sure, starting with the bicameral nature of the design.  

In practice, democracy seems to feature polarity, meaning warring factions, meaning opposition.  Where there's opposition we find alliances and yes, "strange bed partners" (they'd mix it up at the Grange too -- what those dances symbolized, about life as a process).

Does opposition among the parts result in a dynamic equilibrium at the level of the whole?  Most true cyberneticists will certainly posit that possibility, and even give examples, such as the adversarial court system.  That's not to say every warring mess of factions evolves into a self governing self assembly.  A kind of phase change occurs at that point.

Beyond the left-right brain dichotomy and the proverbial war between the lobes (is it proverbial?), we have other internal brain organs.  Calling the brain a "single organ" is semantics more than logic.  Much as a car engine disassembles into separate subsystems, so do brains.  

You might say "that's an oligarchy then" and I might agree with you.  A democracy is never so simplistic as one voter, one vote.  The term has more to do with its rate of turnover and anti-fragility.  Like the blockchain, in principle, its tough for any one faction to pin it down.  You can only fool so many people for so long, to dumb down a well known Lincolnism.

A lot of landlords are coming under scrutiny for their decisions to endanger the rest of us for their personal benefit.  I'm talking about the warlord train owners and their devil may care attitudes.  Suppose the devil does indeed care?  Did you really want that kind of attention?

Unobtanium

Sam confirmed my fear that C6XTY would soon be more impossible to come by. Unobtanium. 

He at one time had large amounts, cite Lattice Gallery.  Designed in the Silicon Forest, Made in China. 

But "the west" (if we want to call it that) proved uninterested. No time. No space. Other priorities. 

So now a lot of it is gone for good, as Sam was not about to shoulder the storage costs all by his lonesome.

Chatter Boxen

Something unkind to say about a person is that so-and-so is a chatter box.  This kind of put down may be less necessary in cultures where people are more glued to their devices and therefore more likely to delegate chattering to the professional chatterboxen who do it for a living.

Bringing up Hugh Kenner at this juncture is a kind of no-brainer.  He was writing about Eliza and such early in the computer revolution.  I have a distinct memory of him getting Eliza and Racter to talk with one another ("talk") in an article in Byte Magazine (McGraw-Hill) for which he wrote a column.

One needn't have a highly developed sense of irony to see everyone cranking out variations of the same article.  The writer does some "research" (reads other articles), then "digests", then puts it back out there in a grammatical form.  Does the chatter box do any less?  The game is to get the next word right.  Stick to beaten paths.

Naturally the chatter boxen trigger various insecurities.  The automated dolls, the miniature robots, made by the French, were unsettling back then (around the time of The Turk).

Synergy

I’m listening to a recording of Peter Meisen and company on the 52 Living Ideas channel.  Bear Island, Maine, duh, not Massachusetts. 

He is talking about the emergency situation in Ukraine, in the context of introducing the idea of Synergy. His focus is the energy budget, and the mix of resources, renewables versus coal.  Shrikant wants to get those already steeped in the Bucky stuff to expound upon these words “synergy” and “emergence”.

My focus these days has been Grunch dashboards, enterprise level instrumentation developed with tools such as dash and plotly, perhaps in tandem with pandas DataFrames.  We’re talking real time monitoring in many cases, of oil rigs for example.  I’m remembering a EuroPython talk.  The technology is a moving target.  I meandered over to Google Earth in one of my tabs, to talk about data visualization as seamless with these satellite painted global data displays.

Long time readers of this blog may know about my Global Data Corporation, which one might call science fictional.  The murky origins were not in Delaware, in “whiteman law” as I called it, but in native peoples (“tribes” is OK, I’m not at Stanford) learning the language of supranationalism, and hearing much of our nation-state talk as holdover Anglo imperialism.  I didn’t want Global Data in the lineage of the treaty breakers.

Thanks to the DSR (design science revolution), the core ideas and algorithms tend to percolate outward to the periphery.  Global Data is fringe in that way, over the horizon, outside the everyday jurisdiction of most business paradigms.  

Through computer science, linear algebra, machine learning and other STEM language games, we make a bridge to this alternative commercial sector shoptalk.  The language of open source interweaves.  As I was telling my students, there’s still plenty of room for private enterprise in the context of communally shared tools.  PayPal calls it “Inner Source” (bringing the communal way of doing things in-house and making it proprietary).  Cynics will cry “co-optation” but what’s free and open poses a non-trivial challenge, a form of competition that tends to cow the more cowardly capitalists.

The Anglos are used to exercising their right to contradict where foundational metaphysics is concerned.  To what extent is the “3Dness” of space a mere dogma?  Heresy.  

I talk about “hypercross dogmatics” and a quasi-religious streak in establishment science, in its embrace of Abbott’s Flatland and the mysteries of the tesseract (hyper cube). We boot a belief in the transcendent with the perpetuation of a priesthood, an elite, with a few from the laity, when we speak in hushed tones of multi-dimensionality.

Speaking of my confusion, regarding the timeline, the location of Bear Island, I'd also managed to scramble the order of the books we all talk about.  Tetrascroll came well before Critical Path, not after.

More Echo Chambers

We should revisit the image of "echo chamber", which I think is a good one, yet even more powerful if paired with other words such as "groupthink" and "choir", even "silo".  I'd make a great machine learner, or am one already, as Chelsea Manning suggested in Berlin that time.

Yes, I've been exploring the world (planet) of NLP, natural language processing.  The specialists have carved out a nifty niche, with a smooth vocab, kudos to University of Toronto.  

When I tell the story, I let Regular Polytopes hitch a ride on the ML bandwagon, because Graph Theory, because Linear Algebra.  I'm linking Regular Polytopes to Coxeter of course, also University of Toronto, and practitioner of hyper-dimensional Euclidean language games.

Did you know Coxeter lent his suite at Cambridge to the Wittgenstein posse, even after deciding what passed for hot philo was not his cup of tea.  Ludwig (LW) had entered his "second phase" by then ("language games"), if I'm not mistaken.  My source is the Siobhan Roberts Donald Coxeter bio:  The King of Infinite Space.  She did a later bio of Conway.

I'm not the expert in the room when it comes to NLP.  I do rub up against Machine Learning in my contemporary role on faculty, but more the way a high school teacher rubs against higher math, as an admirer and fan.  I'll lurk in on Andrius talking Sheffer Polynomials and even get deeper into his slides, but I'm not venturing as an equal into the ring.  I'm an apprentice at best in so many arenas.

My understanding is a breakthrough in the concepts of Attention and Self Attention (operationally defined) has enabled "next word predictors" to take more context into account, in addition to word order.  Would it be right to say a weighted semantic network develops internally, connecting higher attention words to their most frequent associates?  "Michelin" goes with "guide" "travel" and "tourist" as well as "tire".

Speaking of tourism and travel, at one point I was told, while gazing over the maze-like pattern of walls and chambers in the Colosseum in Rome, that I was seeing the ruins of a medieval castle that occupied the Roman stadium in a later century.  I believed that, but was recently talked into accepting these walls and chambers date to Roman times, while the castle story is also true (they're not mutually exclusive). 

Actually, my family, mother in particular, knows more about that castle than most, having taken an interest in Jacopa Frangipani, a luminary protagonist in her The Lions and The Lamb, an historical fiction novel, unpublished.  The Frangipanis owned the castle.  Jacopa was a friend and admirer of St. Francis.

You may have picked up on what I'm doing here:  showing off what "real intelligence" (vs the phony stuff) is still capable of, in contrast.  Everything may appear strung together haphazardly, but on deeper digging, everything checks out.  Eat your heart out GPT-3.

Of Sex and Gender

I've been delving into the various echo chambers (choirs) regarding sex 'n gender recently.  I haven't seen What is a Woman? yet, the documentary style talking points maker, but I've watched several reviews, which feature excerpts.  I catch Tucker Carlson from time to time, who rants on these and other issues.  I tune in channels by trans, feminist and academic content creators.  The internet makes it easy.

Beyond the internet, I've also had my share of life experiences, and welcome my continuing education.  I'm not done developing my views, but do have habits of mind, or call them ruts, or grooves.  I'll lay some tracks, to give a sense of where I'm at.

When I say "rants" coming from a Quaker background, I mean "as a ranter would do" which, in Friendly parlance, is in contrast to the "quietest" who mostly says nothing at all in Meeting for Worship.  Call me a "ranter" too then, as I'm outspoken in my Quaker journals (aka blogs).  Expect some polemics in other words, some invective.

What I'm patting myself on the back for these days, is noticing how "race versus ethnicity" parallels "sex versus gender".  In both cases, the former is something they inform you of, tell you about.  You don't get to contradict them.  "You're Black" says the world, and you'd better believe that, or else.

In the case of race, there's no surgery or hormonal pathway for transitioning, say to Red or Yellow (that's how the game goes) and it wouldn't matter anyway as the whole point with racial categories is people are stuck with what they are, even if they try to "disguise the truth" and "pass" for something else.

Before you attack me, the messenger, for this news about "race", its indelibility and immutability, let me assure you I'm no believer in "races".  I am not a lawyer for this concept.  It has too many holes.  They were already practicing racism when I got here, never asking me what I thought.

Too many perfect humans fall through the cracks as "mixed race" and the pure archetypes (how many? how many pure races are there really?), the primary colors (from which others derive), are hard to come by and agree upon (does "white" really have to be one of them, only to then be treated as "special" as in "white is not a color"? -- seems corrupt and/or bad design). 

I've traced a lot of racial thinking to the story of Noah and family in the Bible.  Since humanity had been "pinched off" by the Great Flood, racial diversity could only be explained in terms of Noah's descendants.  It took the Tower of Babel to get them to spread around.

Speaking of humans spreading around the planet, the social construct they call "the system of nation states" isn't working out all that well either (nice try?).  Too many have had to live their whole lives as "undocumented" and/or as nationless refugees, while in the meantime the whole concept of "sovereignty" is routinely violated.  

I've been a lifelong fan of the United Nations, yet its credibility has diminished over time, thanks to all the flagrant violations of international norms by member states.  I see a broken bureaucracy.

Do we have some alternative?  Not really.  Citizen diplomacy maybe, i.e. human-to-human relating.  

Diplomacy is everyone's business, not just of those with diplomas.  

The Truckers for Peace Program fits in here.

The "race meme" is inextricably mixed with the "breed meme" of animal husbandry.  Humans can, in principle, be bred into breeds, with various traits deliberately inbred to define the brand.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of such eugenic practices.  I'm saying the practice of animal husbandry provides a conceptual foundation for racial concepts.  

Most of us qualify as mongrels, or commoners.  The purebreds count as royalty.  It's an archaic system, a blend of many mental habits, including the arithmetic of fractions (as when one is 1/8th or 1/32nd some specific race or races).

In any case, I'm no eugenicist, nor even a dog breeder (not that I'm against breeding dogs, or cats, or horses...).  

I'm for humans having babies with whomever others consent and commit to such a project.  

I'm also fine with humans choosing not to have any babies at all.  

We get lots of babies, and don't care for them sufficiently, as it is.  We abort a lot of them in theater, on life's battlefields, and a lot of others before birth.  Adoption makes sense.  I'm not proposing anything new in making these remarks, nor telling you how to live your life.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is more fluid, like gender.  

You may be born into a cult, and not even see it as a cult into you grow out of it later (perhaps with no hard feelings, as growing is not always "escaping" -- perhaps this cult was benign).  Looking back, you see a lineage of "former yous" (the yous you used to be).  

That's like a movie synopsis of your individual journey, in the course of which you may take on the traits of many ethnicities, from language to eating habits to political outlook and so on.  

Your ethnicity is akin to your personality, of which your gender forms a part, and attaches to your psychic life more than to your physicality.  Ethnicity is more epigenetic (transmitted outside the chromosomal mechanism).  Buddhist priests come in all shapes and sizes (makes and models).

Race wants to be genetic but has an insecure foothold in contemporary science (no race genes) and could better be ditched all together, to our collective advantage, as "man's most dangerous myth" to quote Dr. Ashley Montagu.

How might we apply the word "trans" in anthropology and philosophy, in connection with changing one's ethnicity?   If an aspiring Jesuit decides to abandon that path and marry a Korean partner instead, isn't that a kind of transitioning?  No plastic and/or cosmetic surgery may be involved.  

Might the more gender fluid trans from gender to gender on a moment by moment basis?  People are allowed to have chimerical, enigmatic and/or mercurial personalities.  How might "gender" figure in?  What's the upper limit on "rate of change"?

Having pride is on the healthier side, feeling ashamed less so, would be my rule of thumb.  But then, as a reproach, we may ask a stranger, with some moral outrage "have you no shame?".   Those incapable of embarrassment (let alone shame) seem lower on the ladder of moral righteousness.  Is that a problem with the ladder?

As teachers, as conveyors of cultural values, we may be enlisted into, cast and tasked with, making clear what shame is all about and when one should have some. 

To this day I recall Mrs. Cunningham in my third grade Junior English School describing the shameful behavior of these strapping young boys on the public bus, too thoughtless, too unaware, to consider offering a seat to frail elders around them.  What were the other passengers thinking of them?  I road the bus a lot as a kid.  I'd always offer my seat to the old people.

We should investigate "guilt" in this same context.  I'd say in all cases there's pressure to develop self awareness, which is the flip side of seeing oneself from many points of view.  "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic" is a good one.  

Nags of guilt suggest new camera angles, perhaps previously unconsidered, and corrective action.  The stimuli feed an "OODA loop" to use some jargon.  Guilt is worthless if not eventually turned into consciously considered cues, to be dealt with.  To be consciously ignored (dismissed) in some cases, wisely heeded in others.

Talking about these surgeries as "cosmetic" gets people riled, as when you call it all "world game" and they say "it's not a game" i.e. to seemingly trivialize and make shallow is insulting and offensive in their estimation and they fight back, feeling provoked.  Perhaps the speaker was being provocative?  I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'm one of those who think growing a thicker skin is usually a better and more practical strategy than socially protecting fragility by means of covert hostility, threats of canceling and deplatforming (what hanging by the neck also entailed). 

Railing against those engaged in "hate speech" is too often itself a form of unreflective "hate speech".  At least it's speech, lets give it that.  If someone claims a speech inspired one to commit violence, does blame automatically adhere to the speaker?  Is the speech itself the crime, or the violence committed?

The contest is forever politeness (polity) and civility versus what's rude and crude.  What does it take to maintain equilibrium in psychologically buffeting weather.  Sometimes what's cruder also adds more intelligibility.  Electric storms have a way of clearing the air.  Sometimes a civil synopsis and summary restores equanimity and further processing capacity.

The Bible gets away with "all is vanity" and that's definitely a way of looking.  What's psychologically healthy is when God is proud of His creation (in patriarchy), not so much when the individual is bursting with self pride in some zero sum game against the balance (i.e. "the other people").  

"Me against the World" pride is at least a tad demonic, but in a divine, angelic kind of way that God Himself loves and forgives (as He does the Miltonian devil).  The only sin is in not being proud of all of it, which we mortals are incapable of being in the first place, hence the original fall.  In the minimal mirror of all Creation, God is eternally regenerative, to summarize Synergetics.

Having seen Avatar 2 recently, I do wonder if a combination of "cosmetic surgery" and "breeding" will move some of humanity towards under ocean living.  We wouldn't be the first big brained mammal to choose this environment.  I've used an "aqua lung" in my day (scuba diving equipment).  

I've sometimes joked I foresee a three pronged future for humans:  those that stay as we are, those that adapt to life underwater, and those that adapt to life in outer space.  

Am I talking about three wholly separate species eventually, that no longer biologically interbreed?  

Hey, it's science fiction.  Lets explore the possibilities.

Blockchain for Fiat Currencies?

I'm in student mode here (as I am at least 80% of the time let's presume), sitting in Econ class (or is it GST?).  I'm learning about the blockchain in the context of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining.  I get the elegance of the scheme, and yes, its limitations.

So my question is:  can't we play this with dollars too?   Or any specific currency for that matter?

What the blockchain solves, is any hanky-panky based on writing checks before others clear, thereby engaging in money creation, which only banks are allowed to do, supposedly under regulator scrutiny.

The blockchain or shared ledger provides a set of uncookable books, if implemented correctly

The different block-makers learn of transactions over a time period, and box them up in a tetrahedral block (just to get that tetrahelix image going).  

A contest is held, and the winner gets to add their block to the veridical strand of "what really happened", and gets paid in the process.

When prototyping, I tend to think in terms of "theme parks" (don't we all?), but also "refugee camps" and other overlays.  On this campus, whatever dollars you like get committed to an electronic wallet that you now get to spend.  Maybe you're paid through your wallet? 

They're dollars, not Bitcoin.  Fiat can play this game too, with the same incentives (i.e. "no cheating").  Am I wrong?

What are the advantages of using your dollars electronically?  It's up to the theme park to make that clear.  The experiment may not be about anonymity.  On the contrary, everyone has access to everyone else's expenditures.  That just happens to be the game here.

Maybe instead of "theme park" we should introduce our mixed use skyscraper, the one with work, home and play, shopping, medical care, and funereal services, a columbarium, all in the one tower or campus complex ("all under one dome" might be the expression).

My other observation, about "blockchain" as a meme, is that it represents "omni-triangulation" i.e. our power to squeeze lies (misinformation) out of the system is increasing exponentially in light of increasing fluency and monitoring.  

Getting away with fraud is getting harder in principle, thanks to techno-integration.

A lot of what's happening is those accustomed to relying on deception are encountering new learning curves, some of which are proving too steep, breaking the banks as it were.

When you're done at the theme park, whatever you have left in your electronic wallet, that you didn't spend, is still usable.  Withdraw it for cash at the ATM if you like.  There's no "currency conversion".  Everything stays M1.

Winter Solstice 2022

Slides Again

Today I dive back into data science world, with a new cohort.  This curriculum is primarily not by me; I add some wrinkles.  I'm happy with the content though, and don't mind using the canned slide decks.

In the embedded video I make it sound like people using decks by others is either a no-no or has never been thought of before I came along.  On the contrary, many a corporate training, say an onboarding, was canned long ago as a PowerPoint.  Every day, people sit through presentations of slides done by people other than the presenter.

That being said, in wanting to inject my own contribution into the mix, I get to stand back and take a look at current and/or best practices, regarding slide decks and the protocols around sharing them.

Advice Column

Perhaps the hallmark of the "modern European nation" in terms of liberalism is it doesn't conceive of itself as being in orbit around (controlled by) any one ethnicity (whatever the one). 

Israel stands out as the hallmark ethnic state, and as such is the envy of many. But then Israel is not in Europe and Saudi Arabia is just as ethnocentric in its own way (we should talk about Britain more). 

The American ideal is closest to having "race creed" etc. not matter on paper, even if in practice people are jerks. 

This is why any talk of "Ukraine for Ukrainians, make us be in Europe now!" sounds so oxymoronic. The Europeans think: "you must be civilized first, and treat the Russians as equals" to which the Ukrainians reply "wait, don't you hate the Russians too?" which to many is the clinching argument. 

What we need is more agreement on "totalitarianism is bad" (dystopian) without all the old branding. We've outgrown the old comic books.

What I'd remind Ukrainians of is that we're ethnically Russian over here too, in America. 

Not only Russian, obviously. 

Lots of Ukes. Lots of Ruskies. 

We've learned to live together. 

Sometimes I think Euros falsely conclude, based on clown shows in DC and recycled NATO propaganda, that America is foundationally Russophobic. To those with such a shallow understanding I'd say: keep digging. History is more complicated than good versus bad. 

If you moralize a lot (or too quickly?), consider you might be a dummy.

XREF:  

Statecraft: the Crafting of States
Rebuilding Ukraine
Breakaway Republics
Ethnocentrism

Synchronous Vs Asynchronous

Today I had a wealth of education programs to choose from, some synchronous, some asynchronous.  One should always prioritize the now or never synchronous opportunities, as a rule of thumb.  However "opportunity" means "affordably passed up" i.e. if it feels mandatory maybe they shouldn't pretend you had a choice.

You know the law has you pinned down when your only button is Accept, in the face of endlessly scrolling legalize.  What they know about you is you might sue if you find a loophole.  "Accept that we have our defenses arrayed against you" says the button.  You press it, if you want to continue with the installation and boot up experience.

As you can tell, I'm in favor of the shorter open source user end licenses, which boil down to "without warranty, go for it".  Then you learn to trust the various scouts as to what's malware or irkware or nagware.  People have different levels of tolerance, with some motivated by sheer curiosity to visit the dark side of the dark side.

Open source is more than that though and I don't mean to short circuit or take lightly the long hours of philosophizing distilled in discussions of the GPL and so on.  I've attended live Richard Stallman talks on more than one occasion, with Portland once billed as a capital of open source, back when that meant a lot to the computer literate.

What I ended up doing with my morning was engaging in telecommunications about pending business regarding acquiring a dog.  I was reminded of ducking out of a meeting at SNEC's founding, in DC, at a house hosted by R. Chu.  E.J. Applewhite followed me out to the sidewalk, curious to overhear what conversation might be important enough to take me out of this synchronous opportunity.  

Overhearing my side, he assumed my wife and I were talking about a servant.  We were actually talking about a dog.  My wife was in an awkward situation, having taken Sarah (our mutt) to a Quaker gathering, a camp, where said dog was not on her best behavior, or such is my recollection.  

I was amused Ed was thinking that (that I had a servant), or pretended to, and that he got me telling the truth in short order.  SNEC = Synergeticists of the Northeast Corridor, an acronym since jettisoned.

Next, I'm going to hop on Protonmail and write about Dark Horse comics (not as a know-it-all mind you, more as a know-nothing).  I'll be overlapping with the TrimTabbers, who were meeting about Applewhite's Cosmic Fishing this morning.  

That was one of my synchronous opportunities.  This will be another way of jumping in on that thread, asynchronously.

Conehead

I'll summarize these couple hours so you don't need to watch them, not that I'd try to talk you out of it. Times 2 speed? Or sample. That's what I do a lot.

That said, I come off like a conehead, a term you may not know, so time for Wikipedia, right? 

More literally, I'm holding the camera very close to my face in extreme closeup, but from an angle that makes my forehead towering, so I look like a conehead, and to some extent sound like one too, no doubt.

The backstory is I only got clear on the time of this event right when I'd just decided to walk to a food pod for food cart Thai food, then come home and fix Carol's dinner.  Dr. D. was in the mix.  How could I do that and be on Zoom at the same time?  Answer:  phone apps.

I've used Zoom for years, but never saw a need to cram all that bandwidth into the palm of my hand.  However with Bluetooth and Airpods, not only was I able to tune in the meeting, I was able to jump in as a talking conehead.  Peter Meisen was in a similar situation:  surrounded by peep noises, yet poised.

So yes, I managed to move forward on several fronts (cooking and other logistics) while having my head popping up somewhere near Philadelphia.  CJ couldn't be there this time.  Shrikant was his usual good humored self.  Everyone was pleasant.  They're very civilized back east, although Shrikant said he'd spent a decade in the Pacific Northwest and could attest to our having our own version of culture.

I was all thumbs however, this being my first time to use Zoom in its phone app format.  I kept swiping the entire app off the screen, meaning I'd kill it and have to sign in again.  That happened at least twice.

The bottom line is I've been tracking (as in lurking in on, usually after the fact on YouTube) this 52 Living Ideas meetup for some time now, as I recount in my self intro.  I've hosted backyard meetups of folks loosely known as Wanderers, with Shrikant and/or CJ on the iPad, sharing the picnic.

Martian Math in the Review View Mirror

I enjoyed this interview.  

I'm not advocating for colonizing Mars so much as converging Mathematics pedagogy with science fiction, ala Martian Math.

My Tweeting Habits

 :: tweeting metaphysics ::

I'm really not sure anyone cares about my Tweeting habits, least of all me.  Actually, me more than most, no doubt, and that's not a lot.  I would be sad to lose what I've tweeted so far.  I don't go back and delete tweets, although I might right at the time, if I hate the typo that much.

My go to guy for Tweet advice has been Derek in large degree, a treasured blog character who does high level social work for very little direct compensation.  I tell more of his story in my Food Not Bombs video, where I get in to what's been happening for me since my "PhD years".  I'm back into meat and plastic a lot more, with less bicycle.

I do have a bicycle though and use it.  Dr. D. and I did the 14 miles, somewhat abbreviated as we came back on Division.  That was the first time.  The second time he got that flat and took the bus the final leg. 

We went from Blue House (old FNB shoptalk) to Springwater Corridor south through Oaks Park, across Sellwood to a continuation of said Corridor out to I-205, left before going under it, back across SE Powell (Hwy 26) to Division (or on to Mill to coast up the south side of Tabor, when I was younger and more fit).

Back to tweeting:  I used @thekirbster and @4DsolutionsPDX.  I don't pay a lot of attention to DMs or bother tracking who's blocking whom.  That's a "board game" I never really got that into.  But that's not casting aspersions on those who did or do.  We all choose our multiple playgrounds and partially overlap here and there.

A Political Spectrum

I use the indefinite article "A" in my title because when it comes to "political spectra" we have a good many.  You might not know it to hear people talk though.  

By tradition, only one pole or axis is used and is labeled Right versus Left.  How one piles on after that depends a lot on subculture.  

In my neck of the woods, juxtaposing "Conservative versus Liberal" atop "Right versus Left", would make some kind of sense, but for how long has it, and for how long will it?

Anyway, I sometimes perk up my ears when I stumble upon some meta discussions of what "Left" and "Right" mean.  I was looking at that topic here on the web as long ago as my Tower of Babel essay of the 1990s, one of the first in my USA OS series.  OS = Operating System.  I'm a computer geek of sorts.

The theory was:  Left is for Entropy, and why we seem to shift left, more left, more left over time, is because of thermodynamics and dissipation.  There's a sense of stuff leaking away.  The Left inevitably makes gains because evil chaos is winning, was the point, of these ostensibly Right wingers.  

When I say "wingers" flash on airplanes too sometimes, flying in formation maybe.

I have a different thesis, but it's similar:  on the Left is where we experiment, as we're impelled to shift our weight. 

The conceit of some on the Right is that we have the option to just stay put, as if freezing everything while we figure out what's going on, were a real possibility.  Even a president can't make that happen.  We're talking natural law, aren't we?

Many on the Right say to teachers: "how dare you experiment with my children".  Well yeah, it does sound demonic when phrased like that.  How about:  every generation is a next set of experiments in living, we hope thriving.  We're looking for the best ways forward.  Much trial and error is involved.  We bark up "wrong trees" in the millions, not seeing the forest for what it is.

It's like when you have a base camp with a cozy fire, but need to move the base camp towards some destination. Like they said in the est Training, when it comes to purpose, just think of always going further west.  Don't ask why; it's a metaphor.  

We therefore send out scouts to find the most promising next trails.  They report back.  We have a meeting to establish consensus.  Sometimes, a wandering band will branch or fork, depending on longer term objectives.

The Left is the perpetually scouting phase, where some come back with reports of dire dangers, awesome wonders, or don't come back at all.  That's where the sense of entropy comes from.  

Casting one's nets forward in time yields a mixed bag, and it's up to the campers to assemble the incoming info, the feedback, in ways that advantage them.  In other words, the curators conserve and build traditions, a fancy name for habits.  Programs.  Engrams. 

Traditionalists conserve artifacts and memories.  In Bayesian terms, they represent collective "priors" i.e. the current sense of things based on experiences to date.  Quakers might think in terms of Meetings for Business.  

We call them "on the Right" because they're the orthodoxy, the accumulated wisdom of the ages.  In theory that is.

Those on the Left may feature a lot of younger and bolder personality types, who with age become slower to jump into the action pell-mell.  The older Right oft times empathizes with the younger whippersnappers who remind them of themselves, closer to the start of whatever careers.  

Yes, this template or boilerplate is the basis of stereotype type casting.  You'll find many a story line featuring "the wizened activist".

So that's my proposed spectrum:  "Curators" (on the right) versus "Experimentalists" (on the left).  Or shall we say "Base Campers" versus "Scouts"?

I'd say let me know what you think in the comments, however the model here is that of "a Quaker journal" and so no "comments" are expected.  However off site commentary is always welcome.  

What do Left and Right mean to you?  

Does the axis I've described make any sense as an organizing polarity?

Asylum City

Little Shop of Horrors Motif

Now that elections are rolling around, there's a lot more focus on the fact that Portland (Oregon) is on the front lines when it comes to working with refugees and their plight as such.  

The business of an exclusionary economy is to create a throng of "losers" in its wake, but the inconvenient truth is we have sufficient know-how to deal with the problem more intelligently and with better planning.  

That truth is inconvenient because now the old ways, involving morally righteous disposal, are ringing hollow.  Especially when these are your neighbors.  The attempt to turn this into a zombie apocalypse only works on the least thoughtful (the most in need of brains).

The link between refugee camps (caused by) and war programming (lethal theater) is pretty obvious.  A lot of vets end up refugee, in their own country, so-called.  They self medicate (use) and end up sick but without care.  Yet we're at that point in human evolution where we know better, so the religious (again, so-called) often sound cruel and hollow, even in their own ears sometimes.

Fine tuning in and around Portland is something we're allowed to converse about in today's climate, given the sense there's almost no one in the political class up for thinking sufficiently like a social engineer (a term with a bad rep, even though social media jobs often involve quite a bit of engineering).

The race for the governor position is especially neck and neck and rhetoric about homelessness, the problem of, ring loudly in the halls of government, as transmitted by media.  Ecotourists come through doing selfie-based travelogues, musing out loud about Portland the Laboratory (with its cast of human guinea pigs).  Isn't that really any city though?  Life is experimental in nature, especially in urban settings, but not only in those.  That's what the science says anyway.

Retrospective: Occupy Portland (2011)

Weighing In Again

I don't impute a lot of nefarious motives to Annoying Orange (a moniker, meme taken), without a much more persuasive case in that direction.  I never bought that dealings with the Ukraine election, on the part of Manafort et al, arose to the level of suspicion projected by armchair viewer voyeurs, the know-it-alls on the matter.  Anyway, I'm biased to think he wanted a pile of souvenirs and interesting reading, not to mention decor, while his Maga Army brought him back, Napolean style, from his Corsica.

Annoying Orange had a dismissive, haughty attitude towards a lot of professionals, leaving a bitter taste and wish for revenge.  He treated his security clearances not as privileges but as rights, as president, to overstep his place and serve unconscionably as a crowd-pleaser in various taboo ways.  The sin of taking oneself too seriously is always hard to see through if one is lacking in self awareness.

Given my snobbishness towards DC in general, I'm hardly the right person to ask, when it comes to doling out justice.  I'm a blogger, Quaker journaler, saying I'm seeing Annoying Orange as closer to Dennis the Menace than some kind of evil operative.  He's a Soprano at worst, and that's not even a show I've watched much.

Weighing In

I'm not one to frequently weigh in on what everyone's talking about, nor pile on where others are piling.  That behavior is less out of snobbery, I would claim, than out of respect for those more into it than I am.  "Let's not be redundant" I tell myself.  I'd prefer to be effective, have some leverage.

That being said, I think the former oval office guy is being consistent with his narrative the election was stolen. That's why he was a government in exile, still privy to all the secrets because one has to govern, it's a responsible job.  Never mind the view out the window is of an ocean and golf links, and not The District. In this day and age, one works remotely, especially if one is a powerful president.

To have the "imposter administration" (in his mind) push back against this public psychosis, shared by many who follow the one, is rubbing salt in the wound of an illegal defeat.  When sinners act against God's will and depose one of his chosen ones, they must be punished.  There's consistency there too.

Am I saying I'm on the side of Mr. T?  I'll admit my narrative includes an "impotus" in the oval office ever since at least Reagan, owing to lack of a truth process regarding the intrinsic unconstitutionality of having high offices in the pocket of The Grunch.  The monied have captured the democracy, which then died in darkness.  Getting back on track will require shining more light on the process and coming up with some new circuit designs for motherboard Earth.

However my narrative is not overtly partisan.  The two parties remain to duke it out, with founder ideals trampled underfoot. I think more people would say I'm part of a "cult of personality" in seeming to kiss the ground my Buddha has walked upon, that Buddha being one Guinea Pig B.  In translation:  my narrative about impotus and the Grunch inherits from American literature penned by a Medal of Freedom winner.

Mr. T's ego had utility as a driving engine and helped an audio-animatronic presidency seem more believable.  That same ego denied the validity of the electioneering behind 2020, but that's the only way voters know how to run an election.  Those who succumb too quickly to conspiracy theories (some of which will be true on occasion) got some therapy.  Too many conspiracy theories in thick succession (e.g. Venezuelan voting machines) tend to be self-canceling and self-undoing.

Now the momentum of Mr. T. is underlining his ongoing unhappiness with the election results and his willingness to take active measures to defend his government in exile, in an alternative reality America that's being made great again (meaning it isn't great now -- a self-defeatist attitude, as many have pointed out).  Getting an audience whipped up enough to mount another attack will likely not work twice, given the evident weakness of the leadership.

M4W

Andrius kindly had me on as a guest to discuss: "what is wisdom?" -- especially in a mathy context.

Academia R Us

 

I sense some snobbishness vs-a-vs the domain name academia.edu, even though it has the requisite global extension. 

"It can't be as real as my college" is the reflexive response, always going for the existential, and feeling threatened.  If you mean it has no dorms or physical campus spaces, you might be right (I'm not sure).

To me, it's just another walled garden with pretty flowers, many specimens, some of them Design Science related. I get to network from here, with my peers.  I get notified when another scholar checks out my Python for Calculus or whatever.

Of G & O

I recall a new relative, from South Africa, kind of squirming at TG a few years ago, when I brought up Die Antwoord, the music group.  Although self cast as a duo, the Ninja guy and Yolandi, the group has lots of off screen talent, visiting dancers and the rest.  The movie Chappie...  

I'm a fan.  But in her circles, this showbiz act was an embarrassment, as maybe some UKers felt around The Beatles, at least originally, back in the day.  This is what you admire in British culture?  What about our Victorian tea cups?

That's an odd segue to G & O I suppose:  Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.  These were not heroes in my youth, as I'd barely heard of either.  I followed Freud, Ernest Becker, Norman O. Brown, Wittgenstein... that's up through university, when I jumped into Erhard & Fuller, a dynamic duo back then (see the new bio).  I've continued to add to my graph (tree) of course.  We don't wanna be stuck in the 1980s.

I'll admit I'm thinking politically in making Ouspensky a focus, in wanting to include some folks from St. Petersburg (I'm talking Eurasia, not Florida), Moscow and like that, in the foyer of fecund philosophers.  Yes there's a "self help" angle to what they were doing.  So what?

Whereas psychoanalysts must needs be psychoanalyzed as a part of their training, we might be worried the philosophers have no therapy.  Enter Wittgenstein, with his philosophy a therapy for specific metaphysical pathologies he knew only too well.  

There's no crime in philosophy wanting to have workshops or seminars, meetups with exercises (rituals) or whatever.  The so-called church has no monopoly on soul searching and/or making.

I have other ulterior motives however.  Gurdjieff is someone Bucky jokingly found congenial, and a fellow alcohol user back then, or so Dr. Richard Buckminster Fuller seemed to suggest.  He talked about the interminable toasts to the many types of idiot, with each a raised glass of something.  Wine? Did the great master use colored water?  Random Google:  "Although Gurdjieff did show some of the signs suggestive of alcoholism, such a daily drinking, drinking early in the day, and driving after drinking...". OK, I get it, he liked to drink.  Shades of Alan Watts.

That brings us to EST:  The Steersmans' Handbook, a copy of which I've only recently (relatively) acquired and consumed.  That's where Bucky is mentioned, and this was all pre Erhard Seminars Training.  Then Bucky and est would cross paths (read the new bio for more of the story).  

That's some pretty tight semantics, and summarizes our chapter:  man the machine ("man cannot do"), man the Spaceship Earth program (woman the "womb man" -- if that's the etymology). 

[ Using "man" or "guy" as a generic actually has a feminist dimension.  The words no longer work to discriminate or distinguish.  The default could just as well be female, in our 300 man brigade, task force or group. ]

Is my point that "overcomers" (as in "we shall overcome") might be drinkers?  More to the point is the similarity across these self help systems:  how to address one's robotic behavior, complete with habits one sometimes feels at a loss to control.  Some philosophers look down on philosophies with much of a psychological dimension, especially where self improvement is involved, and use lots of pejorative language (negative adverts, attack modes), versus jumping into the fray as honest competitors (self promoting, proving positive worth).

In other words, both Bucky and G&O accentuated the positive, and we see that in their respective trackers and backers quite a bit.

I'll fade to Medium here, quoting one of my stories:

EST = Electronic Social Transformation in some passages, although Stevens is clear about the Latin meaning as well, as in “to be” (also a part of Erhard’s spin).

The book is McLuhanesque in terms of attributing the great generational divide to respective diets in terms of media, between the linear book-reading Establishment of legislators, and the immersed “simulsense” TV generation he calls the Movement.

What he calls Est people are the bridge types that still read and write in the manner of the older civilization when needing to, but that experience the new ultra high bandwidth of total immersion in an electronic field of simulcast stimuli and programming, of which television was only the beginning.

Buckminster Fuller is a “simulsense man in spite of his advanced years” (page 34) and Bucky blurbs about the book excitedly on the front cover (see picture above):

Magnificent… an extraordinarily lucid and powerful book. It may well be the straw that will save the camel’s back, of Earthean crisis.

For me, this book helps bind Fuller to McLuhan again, an old nexus I’ve talked about before, and paves the future for the “chummy” relationship achieved by Erhard and Bucky around the time I was leaving Princeton for Jersey City and my first job as a high school teacher at St. Dominic Academy.

Place Based Education (PDX and EWR) -- School of Tomorrow

Thinking with the Ancestors

I rarely talk (or write) about my Uncle Earl.  As is the case with Uncle Bill, I'm using ancestry shoptalk in a shorthand, as both uncles are actually siblings of grandparents, not parents.  

Earl was the in-law of my grandma Margie's sis Betty. I recall the last name was Poole or Poolton, I'll ask Bill if he remembers, probably not.  Carol might.  

My dad's side did not get to meet all of my mom's side, but isn't that usually the case?  We meet the most of our respective clans at weddings and funerals, oft times.

Anyway, I recall this conversation with Earl, who seemed enigmatic, yet good humored, happy to have time with me, asking why we say "the campus" instead of "Campus" or something like that.  Why wasn't Campus a proper name?  But for what?

I have only this dreamy recollection, which includes the room.  Then along comes this "the universe" versus "Universe" talk with respect to the Bucky stuff (R. Buckminster Fuller).  These seem to be grammatical investigations.

Where I come out, almost as a sum of these data points, is with Global University in place of and/or as a synonym for Spaceship Earth.  We say Earth as often as "the earth" it seems to me.  So we might say Campus and mean Earth, as in "the planet" (the one we're on).

Campus in Universe.  Works for me, why not?

I'm fine imputing a subjectivity to these terms, thinking of a passage in Synergetics wherein a Universe is like a complete game of how it might have turned out, something subjunctive flavored like that.  There's a wistful "could have been" to one's own world (shades of Wittgenstein again).

On a rather different subject I'll chronicle here that I got up early and started taking in high volumes.  The complete Silva Ultramind commercial, and then free episodes of the new Showtime documentary on Bill Cosby.

And William James Sidis, the smart kid who just wanted to be left alone to think, therefore to be, not unlike Descartes, always pestered by his "friends".  Later they found a manuscript he'd been thinking on (i.e. writing) and it seemed to be about thermodynamics in some way.  They ran it by Bucky Fuller for his assessment.  Small world.

Social Engineering

Middle Americas

In case you're curious what social engineering might look like, let me share some science fiction.  For one thing, I come from the viewpoint of the Americas all being delighted with one another.  

That North Americans have a Mexico to enjoy, and vice versa, is a double blessing.  So many North Americans I know, and not just the so-called Hispanic ones, are in love with Mexican culture, whereas others have retired in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Belize, Panama and so on.

I used to tell EJA I was bound for Costa Rica, just to get away from the oppressive MIC, which is AFSC jargon for "military-industrial complex" (to which I give a Jungian spin, i.e. "complex" is a psyche thing). My sister lived there for some years.

Speaking of teaching, I want to introduce high schoolers to Regexes, and not just inside the domain of "computer science".  We're always reminded that Regular Expressions were invented by a mathematician. Lets expand high school math to include them.  What's on my plate for the next couple days.

So the social engineering centers around weather reports, as broadcast over TV stations.  Some of the GPS / GIS maps in the background are fairly TexMex in their makeup, i.e. we're in some Middle America between Mexico City and Las Vegas.  

There's a road net, a set of mountain ranges, some valleys with rivers.  The Colorado, for example, no longer has much of a delta to speak of.  Humans have diverted 100% of that particular river.  I'm getting off topic w/r to TV weather, but not w/r to global climate.

When TV viewer-voyeurs are as familiar with Middle Americas as with so-called New England, they'll be less prone to fuel the polarizing language factions.  

Again, the Americas are in love with themselves.  We have so much to treasure.  We are the real West after all (plenty wild), not the pseudo-west of the Atlantic-bounded EU East.

Weather maps, as you've noticed, are used to promote a sense of cohesion, of us versus them. That's why you still see these ludicrous masking algorithms, wherein the "weather of interest" is miraculously masked out.  

As if political boundaries trumped nature.  Hilarious right?  

We get more serious around airports, acknowledging there's an ecosphere (aka a biosphere).  

For the most part, though, we're living (mentally) in a house divided, some us versus them.  

That's your model?  Question authority.

Picture a weather map that strays from Oregon to Washington to Vancouver without a pause.  Bellingham is the belly button of this Cascadia place.  Do we need permission from the District to frame our weather reports as such?  Of course not.  

We might obey conventions out of reflex of course.  "Lets do what we've always done!" is the slogan of Darwin Award champions.

Supergrids

 I've noticed for awhile now that the idea of a "global grid" is nowadays said to be an Asian and, more specifically, a Chinese idea.

Not mentioned here in this Bloomberg vid, is Bucky's World Game making the global grid a top priority.

I guess Bucky is just too scary and troubling a figure to bring up casually in corporate business circles.

The vid also fails to mention one of the oldest HVDC lines, from Oregon to California.

Mind vs Brain

What I'm not expecting the new biography of Bucky Fuller to dive into, given time and space constraints, is Fuller's relationship with P. D. Ouspensky and/or his philosophy. 

We know there was some kind of connection from Linda Darlrymple Henderson's book, on non-Euclidean geometry's influence on modern art.  Apparently Fuller sent a copy of his limited edition 4D Timelock to Claude Bragdon as soon as he self published it, with a note mentioning the importance of Tertium Organum. 

We may conclude Fuller read Tertium Organum, which gets into the "dimension talk" so pervasive at the turn of the millennium (1800s - 1900s). 

Fuller’s appreciation of trailblazers who rose above their peers with pioneering ideas was also influenced by mystically oriented teachers whom he met in New York City at the beginning of the Great Depression. He gravitated to esoteric teachings in spiritual development by the Russian mystic George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (whom Fuller met in Greenwich Village in the late 1920s) and his pupils P. D. Ouspensky and Claude Bragdon, and, in the 1930s, the controversial French American scientist Alexis Carrel. Drawing on these various sources, Fuller merged the design conceptions of his single-family house with mystical iterations on self-propelled evolution. [source]

The connection I'm seeing is between Gurdjieff's picture of "man, a machine", striving to awaken, and Fuller's own emphasis on automaticity, i.e. on processes not carried out consciously, such as digesting and growing hair... including consciousness itself?  

We don't know how we do it.  Look ma, no hands.

Our automaticity is not something we need to moralize about or feel guilty about, so much as wake up to. Like they said in est:  guilt is that thing you hold on to so you can keep doing that thing you feel guilty about.  

Per Bucky, and just ordinary language, waking up to inappropriate reflexes is more a matter of correcting for awkwardness, once a habit gets way out of whack vs-a-vs the actual challenges.  But doesn't this beg the question as to what's inappropriate?  Who's to judge?

Taking a page from Krishnamurti, is it a matter of seeing the cost?  Or call it sticker shock.  We snap out of it to the extent we catch ourselves falling into it, whatever that is.  The shock of realizing you about to doze off in the driver's seat is what might finally persuade you to pull off, the better practice in these conditions.

Assuming "the Self" in the Jungian sense is an anchoring equilibrium, then a disequilibrium might be a daydream or system, a set of beliefs, a faith and practice.  We accept an aberrational system, always needing Self correction in principle.  But what shocks us into actually shaking off the old habits to make room for new grooming?

I bring est into it because in retrospect it doesn't surprise me that these two philosophers would precessionally orbit one another, but not necessarily converge.  Fuller never did the est Training.  Yet his and Erhard's karma most definitely intertwined.  

I'm pointing to a common lineage:  "esoteric" teachings that begin with the unconscious and/or sleeping and/or habitual nature of the human psyche (including thought), with respect to a possibly unrealized self awareness potential.  

I put "esoteric" in scare quotes because none of the actors mentioned was actively working to make their teachings private and/or secret.  What makes the teachings "hidden" is the need to work on oneself, which can be difficult and may imply a workshop setting, with exercises and self-disciplines.

As Applewhite mentions in Cosmic Fishing somewhere, Fuller was not prone to demonize.  He was not into pointing the finger of blame or indulging in resentment, the paradigm negative emotion.  

He could see what he was up against, in terms of pattern integrities.  Yet he is adamant about having no goodies or baddies at the heart of his mechanics.  He's taking after Nietzsche in that way, in revaluing all values. "Accentuate the positive" was his motto, from that song.

"Man cannot do, because man is a bureaucracy" might be one way to provide a synopsis of the Fourth Way teachings.  

To will the good is to will one thing, according to Kierkegaard.  But how often are we free of ambivalence?  Don't we fragment into numerous "I" types, each with a point of view?  We fight with ourselves, in a battle of self overcoming.

Fuller wanted to accommodate the namespaces he trusted, even where the shop talks diverged.  He'd have his own way to keep Love and Gravity connected, including through ample discussion of Newton's Law.  

There's that one-on-one love, of two black holes, swirling around one another, one day to converge.  Then there's that peeling off from a 90 degree orbit and making one's own way, neither tugging nor resisting, what Fuller labeled "precession".

In Fuller's shoptalk, the "brain bureaucracy" may be semi-paralyzed in an awkward state, looking to pull out of a tailspin.  The mind is able to reshape the aberrational, provided one stays open to it.  Whether it's able to do so in time is touch and go in some cases.