Enabling comprehensible global configuration of concept maps

Mind Map of Global Civilizational Collapse (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Representation of mind maps is typically easier to achieve in two dimensions. Whether on paper or on screen, this is the manner in which comprehension is most readily facilitated. Reproduction of images via printers or copying machines imposes this mode. The two-dimensional mind map above is therefore a better vehicle for communication, whatever its inadequacies. The question is whether the integrative understanding required to respond to the challenges of a collapsing global civilization is appropriately represented in this way -- hence the argument for the subsequent images above, best understood by their rotation. This awkwardness offers a useful metaphor for communication difficulties at this time -- neatly highlighted from a cognitive perspective by the arguments of mathematician Ron Atkin (Multidimensional Man; can man live in 3-dimensional space?, 1981) as summarized separately (Social organization determined by incommunicability of insights, 1995).

The above-mentioned work of Buckminster Fuller on the Dymaxion map suggests a valuable way of bridging from two dimension to three by "unfolding" and "refolding" the three dimensional structure as indicated in the following images

Icosahedron unfolded -- with lines representing the specific "Disintegrative Dynamics" of the original mind map

Two successive stages in folding the above map

Completion of folding of the map into global icosahedral form

The process highlights the question as to whether the "distintegrative dynamics" of the original map can be meaningfully and fruitfully "triangulated" to enable their global configuration -- corresponding to the globality of the challenges of governance to which a response is required (Triangulation of Incommensurable Concepts for Global Configuration, 2011). Through the process of "syntegration" (now subject to copyright restrictions), Stafford Beer (1994) addressed this issue through the dynamics of problem "jostling" -- whereby a group of people would effectively juggle the articulation of their concerns as an emergent organization (J. Truss, et al. The Coherent Architecture of Team Syntegrity: from small to mega forms). In practice the process of syntegration converges more readily on "syntegrity" to the extent that the range of issues is narrower -- less incommensurable or challenging -- and when those participating in the process exclude those associated with more controversial dynamics. More challenging versions are required.

Prior to "syntegration", such triangulation was explored on the occasion of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (Configuring Globally and Contending Locally: shaping the global network of local bargains by decoding and mapping Earth Summit inter-sectoral issues, 1992). This included Representation of Issue Arenas on Icosidodecahedral Net and Spherical Representation of Icosidodecahedral Net of Strategies. Following the Rio+10 event, a two-part Rio+20 event is to be held in 2012 (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development; Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]