From star-dom to whizdom to isdom?

Enhancing Strategic Discourse Systematically using Climate Metaphors (Part #11)

Star-dom: Whilst polyhedra, especially those in 4D, do not commonly feature in global discourse, the truncated icosahedron -- as the memorable soccer football -- features prominently and universally in global exchanges, however these may be qualified in terms of game-playing, gambling and corruption. The contrast with 2D depictions of polygons merits careful consideration in the light of the symbolic significance so remarkably and fundamentally associated with symmetrical polygons in various religious, military and political symbols (in the form of stars) -- most notably figuring in the iconography of flags (national flags with variously-pointed stars).

There is thus the possibility that the current quest for any form of integrative reconciliation in the Middle East is "looking in the wrong place". There is a case for identifying the polyhedral form within which the 6-pointed Star of David and the 5-pointed Star of Islam -- and of many others -- can be reconciled geometrically (if only in polychora). Rather than framing conflict in terms of the 2 sides (exemplified by those stars), what might be the polyhedral form through which new insight could be enabled? The approach was specifically explored and illustrated in the case of the Middle East (Middle East Peace Potential through Dynamics in Spherical Geometry: engendering connectivity from incommensurable 5-fold and 6-fold conceptual frameworks, 2012).

Perhaps more provocatively, in the case of national flags depicting multiple stars, this multiplicity could be understood as an inherent lack of integrity, or one which can otherwise only be implied at best. This is the case of the USA, with the 50 5-pointed stars on its flag. The question might then focus on the polyhedral form which would best hold all 50 together -- whether as the vertices or faces of such a polyhedron. The simplest is the rhombicosacron with 50 vertices (being the dual of the rhombicosahedron). Stella4D indicates 7 other possibilities with 50 vertices, and 8 with 50 faces, including the rhombicosahedron. Such 8-fold possibility lends itself to a mapping in its own right. Edges could provide possibility for strips of of red, white, blue.

Integrative reframing of the United States of America (50 states mapped onto selected polyhedra)
Rhombicosacron (animation)	Grip 307 Proj (50 vertices)	Dual of 307 Grip Proj (50 faces)

With respect to the integrity of the European Community, a similar argument could be made with regard to the Flag of Europe, consisting of a circle of 12 5-pointed stars. These of course are readily mapped onto a dodecahedron -- as well as onto more complex polyhedra, in the event of the extension of the Community. However the number of stars remains constant at 12, despite adherence of other states to the Community (currently 28) as well as the use of that flag by the Council of Europe (now with 47 member states). What complex polyhedron would enable memorable reconciliation of such patterns? Would alternation between several be appropriate in the European proposals for so-called variable geometry (Alternation between Variable Geometries, 1985)?

With respect to any issue, why is the focus currently on achieving consensus, unanimity, or bipartisanship, when greater strategic flexibility is offered by a polyhedral framework? Instead of "which side are you on", the challenge becomes one of eliciting new forms of harmony from the complementary sides within a polyhedron -- possibly coloured accordingly. Again it is probable that the difficulty of managing "sides" in any dispute is due to their representation in 2D -- effectively flattening what might otherwise be an appropriate polyhedral mapping. This "sidedness" might well be understood in terms of "beating the binary drum" -- recalling the oversimplification with which drumming has been associated in the past.

Given the extreme symbolic importance attached to stars and their geometry, it might be asked why consideration is not given to the geometrical process of so-called stellation of polyhedra, as argued with respect to the transformative insights of Christopher Alexander (Geometrical configuration of Alexander's 15 transformations, 2010)

From whiz-dom to wisdom: With the possibility of configuring states together as a polyhedron, there is the interesting implication that the key point in any discourse is effectively bounced from one side to another, as in many ball games. So framed the issue can then be understood as enhancing the quality of the passing patterns. As a container, the polyhedral context then constitutes a form of whiz-dome, as can be explored with respect to web site design (Transforming Static Websites into Mobile "Wizdomes": enabling change through intertwining dynamic and configurative metaphors, 2007).

Such possibilities point to the challenge of how wisdom may be fruitfully embodied by a collectivity -- collective wisdom in contrast with collective intelligence -- and how this might be reflected in a wizdome potentially characterized by an appropriate set of interrelated processes. The approach can be applied to the functional integration of global strategic coalitions -- Group of 5, Group of 7, Group of 20 -- as ****

Isdom?: The above argument has strongly emphasized the importance of time as a fourth dimension virtual to strategic coherence in governance. As argued separately, many studies explore the importance of the distinctions in the sequence from "data", through "information", then on to "knowledge", and finally to "wisdom" (The Isdom of the Wisdom Society: embodying time as the heartland of humanity, 2003). At each stage there is a much-studied challenge of "management" (as in "information management" and "knowledge management"). Arguments are also made for the importance of a corresponding "information society" or of a "knowledge society" -- perhaps expressed as a "knowledge-based society". But clearly it is easiest to argue the case for an "information" focus, especially to hardware, software and information vendors -- hence the title of the UN World Summit on the Information Society.

It is more challenging to make a case for a "knowledge society", especially since "knowledge management" is in process of being disparaged as a fad term lacking any real content -- notably in those corporate environments that claim to practice it. And yet it is precisely the transfer of knowledge, in the form of "know-how" that has been a preoccupation of the United Nations over many development decades.

But, as Margaret Mead is reported to have declared on a memorable occasion: "We know all we need to know". The problem is that "we" do not know how to fit it together into a meaningfully communicable pattern which could catalyze appropriate action. As a philosopher, Mary Midgley (Wisdom, Information and Wonder: what is knowledge for? 1989) asks the pertinent question:

In what sense is a thing known if five hundred people each know one constituent of it and nobody knows the whole? Or again; what if this truth has a thousand constituents and half of them are not known to anyone, but only stored in libraries? What if all of them only exist in libraries? Is it enough that somebody knows how to look them up if they should ever be needed? Indeed is it enough that this person should have access to a system which will look them up? Does the enquirer even have to understand the questions which these truths answer? (p. 6)

Given the challenges of information overload and attention fatigure, the issue is very specifically highlighted with respect to text of any length -- as with that of global plans. The point has been recognized with respect to verification of a complex mathematical proof based on hundreds of articles spread across a wide range of journals, as in the case of the Monstrous moonshine conjecture.

When does inclusion of explanation exacerbate rather than alleviate? When does substitution of links become dysfunctional -- given the issue of a link-too-far, namely "link fatigue"? What can be appropriately "re-membered"? When does their absence of explanation exacerbate incomprehension and misunderstanding? How is complexity then to be rendered coherent? To what extent are either authors, reviewers or readers able to re-member a complex network of argument? Such issues of engaging with insight of any higher order appropriate to strategic governance merit particular appreciation (Engaging with Insight of a Higher Order: reconciling complexity and simplexity through memorable metaphor, 2014; Requisite Meta-reflection on Engagement in Systemic Change? 2015; Investing Attention Essential to Viable Growth, 2014)

Curiously transformations between polytopes -- through processes such as truncation -- offer means of exploring the issue. Does hypercompression of texts (as with Tweets), combined with their hypermultiplication, enable a knowledgable collectivity, as is increasingly assumed?

In fact there is no "we" with a shared awareness permitting coherent action. But as is noted on the cover of The (Updated) Last Whole Earth Catalog (1974): We can't put it together; it is together. It is wisdom that is called upon to respond to such dilemmas -- not knowledge. The polychoral approach above offers a dynamic framework through which to envisage the nature of a "wisdom society" -- as distinct from the much-studied "knowledge society".

The fundamental "dilemma" is evident in the higher the sense of possessing the answer for others, the greater the probability of that answer being denied as adequate by others. As modes of subunderstanding, how disparate modes of knowing are to be configured recalls the challenge of spherical packing of distinct polyhedra (Implication of the 12 Knights in any Strategic Round Table, 2014).

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

From star-dom to whizdom to isdom?