Correspondences between juggling and governance

Governance as "juggling" -- Juggling as "governance" (Part #12)

---

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

---

In terms of this argument, there is therefore a kind of weaving (or braiding) to be explored through metaphor between archetypal figures (of governance), the zodiacal pattern of archetypes, and the fundamental physical concepts -- as they apply to juggling (or to piloting a helicopter). The extensively articulated understanding of financial measures in relation to governance is clearly also a source of insight -- notably to the extent that considerations of such measures are "juggled" in practice. Presumably insights from each would then inform the others to some degree. The value of the juggling emphasis is that it is an experiential skill. As yet to be discovered is a means of translating between such modalities, as exemplified by the challenge of the Triple Helix approach. The need for a form of "Rosetta stone" then becomes apparent, as argued by Arthur Young,

Although physicists and mathematicians may indeed be fascinated with juggling, few have the capacity to apply their understanding of the fundamental concepts of physics to juggle a set of balls -- however limited. The experiential dimension is also essential to any relevance to governance -- hence the value attached to "experience" in that context. Again, few academic experts with an insight into the "fundamental concepts" of governance are renowned for their governance capacity in practice. How many are known for their juggling capacity -- other than in metaphorical terms? The zodiac pattern offers a valuable communication template accessible to the many, however much it is currently deprecated by the few who are otherwise handicapped.

Juggling offers the additional advantage in that a number of interactive animations have been produced with sets of parameters which can be explored -- to a greater degree than is possible with the challenges of governance as currently conceived. Do such parameters also offer a basis for exploring the correspondences as argued here?

Adaptation of Arthur Young's table configured below as a "Rosetta stone of meaning" (terms in bold are those from physics; those in italics are the meaning attributed to them by Young)
	T0	T-1	T-2	T-3
Actions	[L]  position observation	[L/T] velocity change	[L/T2] acceleration spontaneous act	[L/T3] control control	M0L
States	[ML]  moment significance	[ML/T] momentum transformation	[ML/T2] force being	[ML/T3] mass control establishment	ML
Relations	[ML2] moment of inertia faith	[ML2/T] action impulse	[ML2/T2] work fact	[ML2/T3] power knowledge	ML2

The question is then how to explore possible correspondences between governance in an organization, of a helicopter (for example) and juggling -- as tentatively presented in the following table.

Correspondences of governance and juggling to physical significance (items in italics from the physical context tend to be interpreted otherwise with respect to governance and juggling)
Formula	Significance (in piloting)	Governance	Juggling
[L]	position	position / observation / vigilance	position / observation / vigilance / judgment
[L/T]	velocity	change	velocity
[L/T2]	acceleration	initiative / acceleration / spontaneous act	acceleration
[L/T3]	control	control	control
[ML]	moment	significance	moment
[ML/T]	momentum	momentum / transformation	momentum
[ML/T2]	force	force / being	force
[ML/T3]	mass control	mass control / establishment	mass control
[ML2]	moment of inertia	inertia / faith / commitment / belief	inertia
[ML2/T]	action	action / impulse	action
[ML2/T2]	work	work / fact	work
[ML2/T3]	power	power / knowledge	power

With respect to governance in the table, the indications could be completed by web searches for related terms commonly used, as in previous adaptations of the table (Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development, 1998; Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes essential to sustainable dialogue, 1998). A similar approach could be taken with respect to terms of importance in juggling and other physical disciplines, notably the martial arts and acrobatics. The question is how insights in one column are to be "translated" into their tentative correspondences in the other columns. The cognitive implications are further discussed separately (Cognitive implication in contrasting modalities, 2018; Rosetta stone of meaningful cycles? 2018).

The attributions can be usefully compared with the articulation in a seemingly different "language" by Kevin Kelly (The Inevitable: understanding the 12 technological forces that will shape our future, 2017):

Becoming: Moving from fixed products to always upgrading services and subscriptions Cognifying: Making everything much smarter using cheap powerful AI that we get from the cloud Flowing: Depending on unstoppable streams in real-time for everything Screening: Turning all surfaces into screens Accessing: Shifting society from one where we own assets, to one where instead we will have access to services at all times. Sharing: Collaboration at mass-scale.

Filtering: Harnessing intense personalization in order to anticipate our desires Remixing: Unbundling existing products into their most primitive parts and then recombining in all possible ways Interacting: Immersing ourselves inside our computers to maximize their engagement Tracking: Employing total surveillance for the benefit of citizens and consumers Questioning: Promoting good questions is far more valuable than good answers Beginning: Constructing a planetary system connecting all humans and machines into a global matrix

The circular presentation of the table by Young in relation to his arguments with respect to the pattern of the zodiac is presented on the left below -- tentatively augmented with the 15 fundamental concepts of Arnopoulos (2000). Note that 3 of the latter's concepts have been set below, arguably because they do not lend themselves to direct experience in the same manner as the other 12.

"Rosetta stone of meaning" of Arthur Young tentatively supplemented by fundamental concepts of sociophysics (Paris Arnopoulos, 2000)	Stack-graph for 3-ball juggling pattern (reproduced from Macauley, 2003)

The intriguing question, highlighted by the schematic on the right, is can the pattern of governance functions on the left be "juggled" in some way -- especially when informed by the braiding pattern? Can it be simulated by juggling, whether with more balls or more partners? The image on the right derives from the juggling of only 3 balls by one juggler. A more complex pattern would naturally result from juggling more balls -- presumably then approximating more closely to the pattern on the left. Of potential relevance is the so-called Star of David theorem -- is a mathematical result on arithmetic properties of binomial coefficients, representes succinctly as follows (with the rows of the Pascal triangle shown as columns).

Star of David theorem

Reproduced from Wikipedia

As a simulation of processes in governance, it is intriguing to explore whether the various 3-ball patterns offer valuable insights into the manner in which topics and priorities are juggled in any context, and especially how issues may be juggled in a 2-party system. The simulation of the movements of the left and right hands are a useful trigger to reflection.

Selection of animations of 3-ball juggling patterns by one juggler (derived from juggling patterns in Wikipedia)
3-ball cascade	3-ball shower	3-ball columns	3-ball box	3-ball Mills mess	3-ball Burke's barrage
attribution	attribution	attribution	attribution	attribution	attribution

Clearly of even greater potential interest are the many animations of 4 or more balls with two or more juggling partners -- namely the possibilities of keeping more balls "in the air".

---

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